J ' 

3325 
1900 
(25 


'oiinecticot  Constitution 


B.  GARY 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


ru  .  / 


^^^^rf  O&r^r^^^^ 


y  ^rl 


'<^/ 


.^ 


XWI^^/^T    Jl^^/^/^ 


^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/connecticutconstOOcary 


THE 


Connecticut  Constitution 


BY 

MELBERT    B.    GARY 


new  haven : 

The  Tuttle,  Morehouse  &  Taylor  Co. 

1900 


Copyright,  1900 
By  Melbert  B.  Gary 


All  rights  reserved 


CO 


T^ 


L5.i 


Co  m  People  of  Connecticut 


2013164 


PREKACB 


At  a  time  when  much  is  said  about  the  defects  of  our 
system  of  government,  and  the  corrupt  tendency  so 
manifest  in  municipal,  state,  and  national  affairs  is 
raising  doubts  as  to  the  future  of  Republics,  this  work, 
which  may  be  called  a  study  in  popular  government, 
as  affected  by  the  exigencies  of  modern  politics,  is 
undertaken  in  the  hope  that  it  may  tend  to  strengthen 
the  faith  of  those  who  believe  in  government  by  the 
people,  and  that  the  people  themselves  can  be  depended 
upon  to  work  for  right  and  justice,  whenever  they  fully 
imderstand  and  appreciate  the  situation. 

A  condition  of  affairs  has  arisen  which  is  causing 
many  to  declare  that  the  people  no  longer  rule  in  Con- 
necticut; that  the  equality  of  man  before  the  law  is  a 
myth ;  that  we  have  drifted  far  away  from  the  princi- 
ples laid  down  by  our  forefathers  in  the  constitution  of 
1639,  ^""^^  that  the  constitutional  conditions  existing  in 
the  State,  tend  more  toward  political  corruption  than 
in  any  State  in  the  Union. 

It  is  folly  or  hypocrisy  to  say  there  is  no  ground  for 
these  statements.  They  are  made  by  loyal  and  loving 
sons  of  the  State,  who  make  them  with  regret  and  only 
in  the  hope  that  by  laying  bare  the  truth  a  change  may 
become  possible. 

If  by  the  following  words  a  little  impetus  be  given 
to  the  cause  of  good  government,  and  toward  restoring 
Connecticut  to  her  former  position  of  leadership  in  the 
march  of  constitutional  progress,  the  writer  will  be 
satisfied. 

WlLDF.\RMS, 

RiDGEFIELD,    CONN. 

July  23,   1900. 


CONTKNTS 


Chapter  Page 

I.     Historical i 

II.     Unequal  Representation 15 

III.  Arguments  in  Favor  of  Present  Sys- 

tem   28 

IV.  Plurality  Elections 34 

V.     Legislature  Has  Too  Much  Power     .  41 

VI.     Executive  Has  Too  Little  Power     .  46 

VII.     Judicial  Department 50 

VIII.     Unequal  Taxation 55 

IX.     Civic  Corruption 63 

X.     Injustice  to  Cities 82 

XI.     Injustice  to  Towns 89 

XII.     Injustice  to  Citizens 95 

XIII.  Methods  of  Changing  the  Constitu- 

tion   102 

XIV.  Conclusion 109 

Appendix 115 


The 
Connecticut  Constitution 


CHAPTER    I 


HISTORICAL 


GIBBON'S  "Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman 
Empire"  presents  no  more  startling-  picture  of 
a  people  who  once  led  the  world,  fallen  from  its  high 
estate,  than  does  the  history  of  Connecticut  for  the  past 
250  years,  when  studied  with  reference  to  her  political 
development  and  present  status.  The  comparison  at 
first  may  seem  strong,  but  it  simply  emphasizes  the 
lack  of  intelligent  appreciation  of  the  mighty  forces 
wdiich  were  first  set  in  motion  by  her  early  settlers, 
and  the  depths  of  self-stultification  which  have  now 
been  reached. 

Almost  unconsciously  since  the  early  part  of  the  cen- 
tury, and  without  any  such  intention  or  affirmative 
action,  this  grand  old  commonwealth  has  gradually 
receded  from  the  proud  position  of  leader  and  teacher 
of  the  whole  civilized  world  in  the  science  of  govern- 
ment, until  now,  among  the  republics  of  the  world, 
among  the  States  of  this  Union,  there  is  none  so  poor 
to  do  her  reverence.  Government  and  law  were  old 
before  Connecticut  was  known,  but  the  perfect  flower 


2  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

of  the  science  of  government  is  self-government,  and 
the  first  step  toward  self-government  is  the  spontane- 
ous and  untrammelled  adoption  by  a  free  people  of  a 
fundamental  agreement  commonly  called  a  constitution. 

The  first  authentic  occurrence  of  this  kind  recorded 
in  history  took  place  within  the  borders  of  Connecticut 
in  1639,  when  the  people  of  the  towns  of  Windsor, 
Wethersfield  and  Hartford,  met  and  adopted  a  consti- 
tution, under  which  they  lived  for  many  years.  The 
nearest  approach  to  similar  action  prior  to  this  was  the 
Union  of  Utrecht,  which,  however,  was  not  the  people's 
action,  but  was  imposed  upon  the  Netherlands  republic 
by  the  Prince  of  Orange. 

The  compact  signed  on  the  Mayflower  was  only  an 
agreement  by  the  Pilgrims  to  form  some  kind  of  a 
government  after  they  landed,  and  this  document 
began  with  the  formal  acknowledgment  of  the  King 
as  the  source  of  all  authority. 

So  to  Connecticut  belongs  the  glory  of -being  the 
first  to  take  this  step,  which  has  been  followed  by 
every  republic  since  established  in  the  new  and  old 
worlds,  and  by  all  the  states  of  the  Union. 

The  constitution  of  1639  was  as  admirable  in  its 
details  as  it  was  great  in  its  conception.  It  provided 
for  equal  representation  in  the  following  words  :  "They 
shall  send  so  many  deputy es  as  the  courte  shall  judge 
meete;  a  reasonable  proportion  to  the  number  of  free- 
men that  are  in  the  said  townes."  It  also  provided 
unequivocally  for  plurality  elections,  where  it  declared 
that  "He  that  hath  the  greatest  number  of  papers 
(votes)  shall  be  governor  for  that  year."  It  declared 
for  liberty  of  speech;  election  by  ballot  and  political 
equality  of  mankind. 


HISTORICAL.  3 

This  was  Connecticut's  first  great  achievement  in 
history — an  achievement  sufficient  to  render  her  fame 
imperishable,  for  to  her,  because  of  this  action,  pre- 
eminent in  the  seventeenth  century,  every  man,  whether 
he  be  free  or  yearning  for  freedom,  whatever  may  be 
his  country,  owes  a  debt  of  gratitude.  But  this  is  not 
all;  for  more  than  a  hundred  years  later  after  the 
great  struggle  for  independence  had  been  won,  and  the 
representatives  of  the  colonies  met  in  convention  at 
Philadelphia  in  May,  1787,  to  frame  and  adopt  a  fed- 
eral constitution,  Connecticut  again  came  to  the  front, 
and  proved  herself  a  leader  in  the  science  of  govern- 
ment. It  was  Connecticut  which  appeared  as  a  media- 
tor between  the  so-called  large  states  and  the  small 
states  in  the  bitter  dispute  which  arose  concerning  the 
proposed  terms  of  confederation ;  and  succeeded  finally 
in  securing  the  adoption  of  an  instrument,  based  upon 
the  same  general  principles  as  her  own  state  constitu- 
tion of  1639,  which  virtually  lasted  until  1818,  for  the 
charter  of  1662  changed  it  in  no  essential  point. 

There  was  no  question  then,  and  there  is  none  now, 
that  the  successful  operation  of  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  Democracy,  as  embodied  in  the  constitution  of 
1639,  for  nearly  a  century  and  a  half,  was  one  of  the 
chief  causes  that  led  to  the  adoption  of  our  federal 
constitution  as  it  was  finally  framed,  or,  as  an  eminent 
historian  states :  "It  is  hardly  too  much  to  say  that  the 
birth  of  the  constitution  was  merely  the  grafting  of  the 
Connecticut  system  on  the  stock  of  the  old  confedera- 
tion." 

Passing  now  from  the  eighteenth  to  the  nineteenth 
century,  we  find  Connecticut  again  distinguished  as  a 
constitution  maker,  by  reason  of  the  firm  stand  she  took 


4  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

in  1818  against  religious  intolerance.  Prior  to  that 
time,  in  this  state  we  had  an  established  church,  which 
all  men  were  taxed  to  support,  whether  they  belonged 
to  it  or  not,  and  more  than  that,  all  dissenting  churches 
were  taxed  by  law  for  support  of  the  established  church. 
Another  law  was  that  anyone,  even  if  ordained,  who 
preached  in  a  parish  without  the  invitation  of  the 
minister  of  the  established  church,  should  be  sent  as 
a  vagrant  from  constable  to  constable  out  of  the  state. 
Finally,  the  democratic  party  came  to  the  decision  to 
make  common  cause  with  the  dissenters  of  all  sects, 
and  demand  disestablishment,  and  in  1816,  at  New 
Haven,  on  that  platform,  nominated  Oliver  Wolcott 
and  Jared  Ingersoll  for  Governor  and  Lieutenant- 
Governor,  and  they  called  themselves  the  Party  of 
Tolera:tion.  Ingersoll  was  elected,  and  Wolcott  barely 
defeated,  but  in  the  following  year  the  Party  of  Tolera- 
tion elected  them  both,  and  also  two-thirds  of  the 
legislature.  Their  first  achievement  was  to  put  all 
sects  on  an  equality  as  to  taxation,  and  the  next  to 
call  a  state  convention  to  frame  a  constitution,  which 
has  lasted  to  this  day,  and  which  declares  (Section  3) 
"The  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  profession 
and  worship,  without  discrimination,  shall  forever  be 
free  to  all  citizens  of  this  state." 

Thus,  early  in  the  nineteenth  century  did  Connecticut 
proclaim  the  great  principles  of  the  equality  of  all 
religious  bodies  before  the  law,  and  the  absolute 
separation  of  church  and  state. 

Such  is  the  record  of  the  state  as  a  constitution 
maker  in  the  seventeenth,  eighteenth  and  nineteenth 
centuries ;  a  record  of  which  her  sons  may  well  be 
proud,  and  which  entitles  her  to  be  called  the  Mother 


HISTORICAL.  5 

of  Republics.  What  has  she  done  to  add  to  her  fame 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  now  rapidly 
drawing  to  a  close?  What  is  her  record  during  a 
period  so  full  of  progress  and  advancement  in  the 
cause  of  good  government  the  world  over?  Where 
does  she  stand  in  this  respect,  in  the  Sisterhood  of 
States  that  has  grown  out  of  the  original  thirteen? 
Has  she  maintained  her  proud  position  as  leader,  or 
has  she  stood  still  in  this  march  of  events,  and  become 
a  by-word  among  them? 

It  seems  as  if  the  preeminence  which  she  once 
attained  only  serves  to  emphasize  the  depths  to  which 
she  has  now  fallen,  and  the  mere  statement  of  her 
present  condition  shows  clearly  the  imperative  need  of 
another  constitutional  convention. 

The  constitution  of  1818  was  adopted  by  a  popular 
vote  on  the  5th  day  of  October  of  that  year,  there  being 
13,918  votes  in  favor  and  12,364  against  it,  and  one 
week  later  Governor  Wolcott  issued  a  proclamation 
declaring  that  the  constitution  was  henceforth  to  be 
observed  by  all  persons  as  the  supreme  law  of  the 
state.  During  the  next  thirty  years  the  wisdom  of  its 
adoption  seemed  to  be  justified  by  the  universal  satis- 
faction which  it  gave,  and  the  eight  amendments  which 
were  adopted  during  that  period,  although  important, 
were  only  in  the  nature  of  perfecting  and  rounding  out 
the  instrument  as  a  whole.  In  the  decade  between 
1830  and  1840,  however,  serious  inequalities  regarding 
representation  in  the  General  Assembly  began  to  be 
manifest,  caused  by  the  shifting  of  the  population  and 
the  increase  in  some  towns  at  the  expense  of  others. 
At  this  time  also  a  new  factor  appeared,  which  con- 
tributed very  largely  to  render  these  inequalities  more 


6  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

striking,  and  which  had  a  most  powerful  influence  in 
determining  the  future  character  of  the  state  as  regards 
the  distribution  of  its  inhabitants. 

As  is  well  known,  even  in  colonial  days,  Connecticut 
had  been  most  prominent  in  the  arts  of  invention,  in 
manufactures  and  industrial  development,  but  business 
enterprises  had  been  carried  on  mainly  by  individuals 
or  by  firms.  In  1837  the  General  Assembly  passed  the 
Joint  Stock  Act,  which  was  framed  by  Mr.  Theodore 
Hinsdale,  a  prominent  manufacturer  of  the  state  at 
that  time,  and  this  was  the  beginning  of  the  business 
corporation  which  has  since  been  so  universal,  and  has 
exerted  such  a  tremendous  influence  in  facilitating  the 
development  of  all  forms  of  commercial  industry.  The 
idea  spread  with  great  rapidity  and  has  found  expres- 
sion on  the  statute  books  not  only  of  the  nation,  and 
of  all  the  states,  but  is  also  plainly  manifest  in  the 
English  Limited  Liability  Act  of  1855.  As  a  result 
of  this  law  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  rearrange- 
ment of  the  inhabitants,  and  the  natural  growth  in 
population  of  the  state,  was  given  a  greater  impetus 
than  can  be  credited  to  any  other  single  cause.  Then 
commenced  the  exodus  from  the  farm  to  the  factory ; 
then  also  the  development  of  the  city  at  the  expense 
of  the  towni,  and  by  the  ensuing  multiplication  of  manu- 
facturing enterprises,  many  people  from  the  other 
states,  and  from  the  old  world,  were  led  to  take  up 
their  homes  in  the  industrial  centers  of  the  common- 
wealth, in  order  to  fill  the  largely  increased  demand  for 
skilled  labor,  and  to  avail  themselves  of  a  greater 
income  than  could  be  obtained  from  tilling  the  farms. 
Then  too  was  born  the  idea  of  injustice  resulting  from 
the  unequal  representation  accorded  to  the  different 


HISTORICAL.  7 

towns;  an  idea  which  has  grown  stronger  and  more 
prevalent  with  each  succeeding  decade,  as  the  inequal- 
ity and  resulting  unfairness  has  grown  correspondingly 
greater  and  more  perceptible;  an  idea  that  has 
struggled  during  the  ensuing  sixty  years  for  some  sort 
of  practical  expression ;  a  feeling  that  pervaded  the 
plain-thinking  people  as  well  as  the  scholars  and  those 
versed  in  the  science  of  government,  that  the  state  was 
drifting  away  from  the  most  vital  and  important  of 
all  principles  of  democratic  government — that  of  the 
absolute  and  complete  equality  of  all  men  before  the 
law.  Contrasted  with  the  constitutions  of  1639  and 
of  1818,  which  provided  in  plain,  unmistakable  terms 
for  practical  equality  of  representation  and  power 
in  managing  the  affairs  of  state,  it  appeared  more 
clearly  with  each  succeeding  census  that  this  equality 
had  been  destroyed;  that,  as  regards  representation, 
Connecticut  was  a  government  of  the  people  only  in 
name  and  an  oligarchy  in  fact;  that  the  minority  in 
very  many  cases  ruled  the  majority;  that  the  state 
had  outgrown  the  constitution  as  a  child  outgrows 
its  clothes,  and  that  there  was  great  and  pressing  need 
of  a  radical  readjustment  of  the  system  of  representa- 
tion, if  it  were  desired  to  maintain  the  principles  of 
popular  government,  and  deal  justly  and  fairly  with  all 
citizens. 

For  more  than  sixty  years  eft'orts  in  this  direction, 
oft  repeated,  put  forth  under  new  circumstances  and 
undoubtedly  inspired  by  different  motives,  sometimes 
as  a  matter  of  principle  and  of  abstract  justice,  some- 
times as  a  question  between  the  towns  and  the  cities, 
and  latterly  as  a  party  question,  have  been  as  fre- 
quently defeated  for  divers  reasons.     The  movement 


8  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

has  gathered  force  with  the  passage  of  years  and  by 
reason  of  repeated  defeats,  but  everyone  who  beheves 
in  the  success  and  permanence  of  popular  government, 
and  in  the  uhimate  victory  of  justice  over  injustice, 
knows  that  the  change  is  bound  to  come.  Just  as  after 
many  years  of  fruitless  effort  the  institution  of  slavery, 
which  was  equally  repugnant  to  the  same  principle  of 
equality  of  man  before  the  law,  which  institution 
was  defended  on  the  grounds  of  justice,  precedent, 
law  and  self-interest,  was  finally  utterly  abolished,  and 
few  can  now  be  found  who  are  willing  to  justify  its 
existence  or  continuance. 

A  few  men  are  still  living,  who  remember  when  this 
question  of  changing  the  basis  of  representation  first 
became  a  prominent  issue,  and  a  proposition  was  made 
in  the  General  Assembly  for  calling  a  constitutional 
convention.  Many  years  ago  Judge  Hamersley,  who 
is  now  a  member  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Errors,  was 
elected  to  the  legislature  upon  this  issue  and  became 
the  leader  of  its  advocates  in  the  General  Assembly, 
where  he  made  an  address  upon  this  subject  that  is 
still  remembered,  and  of  which  the  following  account 
is  given  by  one  who  was  there : 

"It  was  a  magnificent  effort  and  his  argument  was  irresistible. 
Not  one  on  the  other  side  of  the  question  could  meet  the  argu- 
ment and  there  wasn't  a  word  said  on  that  side.  The  repre- 
sentatives from  the  little  towns  just  sat  there  and  took  it  all  in, 
and  then  when  the  question  was  submitted  to  the  House  for  a 
vote,  those  in  favor  of  constitutional  reform  numbered  25  or 
35  perhaps.  But  a  great  shout  of  noes  went  up  when  those 
opposed  to  the  proposed  measure  were  called  upon  to  vote.  It 
was  overwhelmingly  defeated  and  Mr.  Hamersley,  and  those 
who  were  interested  in  the  movement,  were  thoroughly  dis- 
gusted.    Next  day,  or  it  may  have  been  that  same  night,  a 


HISTORICAL.  9 

number  of  the  men  who  had  voted  against  the  bill,  met  Mr. 
Hamersley  in  the  corridor  of  the  hotel  where  he  was  stopping, 
and  they  went  up  to  him  in  a  body  and  congratulated  him 
upon  the  very  able  speech  he  had  made  for  the  measure. 
They  assured  him  also  that  his  argument  was  conclusive. 
'Well,  why  didn't  you  vote  for  the  bill  if  you  believed  my 
position  was  the  right  and  just  one?'  asked  Mr.  Hamersley. 
Their  answer  to  this  question  indicated,  that  they  were  not 
governed  by  their  convictions  but  entirely  by  selfishness." 

On  the  29th  of  April,  1850,  the  Hartford  Courant, 
then  as  now  one  of  the  leading  papers,  not  only 
of  the  state  but  of  all  New  England,  published  an 
editorial  in  favor  of  calling  a  constitutional  conven- 
tion, in  order  to  correct  the  inequality  of  representation 
and  other  evils,  resulting  from  the  constitution  of 
1818,  which  has  become  a  classic  in  the  editorial  his- 
tory of  the  state,  by  reason  of  the  power  of  its  argu- 
ment and  the  unanswerable  justice  of  its  position,  and 
to  which  unusual  attention  has  been  called  during 
the  past  few  years,  because  of  the  fact  that  the  Courant 
has  entirely  changed  its  attitude  upon  the  question  of 
representation,  and  is  using  the  influence  of  its  position 
and  the  well  known  ability  of  its  editorial  writers,  to 
prevent  the  establishment  of  the  reforms  which  it  then 
so  ably  advocated.  Since  it  is  one  of  the  strongest  and 
best  arguments,  in  favor  of  the  rearrangement  of  the 
present  system  of  representation,  we  have  taken  the 
liberty  of  citing  a  few  extracts.  Speaking  of  the  con- 
stitutional convention  of  1818,  it  says: 

"The  convention  were  unwilling  to  hazard  the  fate  of  their 
favorite  and  then  necessary  measures  by  the  opposition  of  the 
small  towns,  if  their  unequal  representation  were  taken  from 
them;  and  they  therefore  suffered  these  relicts  of  feudalism, 
based  originally  upon  the  imperfect  rights  that  were  wrested 
from  the  nobles,  to  remain  engrafted  upon  our  constitution. 


lo  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

We  think  that  no  candid  man,  who  views  our  system  of  rep- 
resentation rightly,  and  who  is  not  prejudiced  by  the  power 
which  it  improperly  flings  into  the  small  towns,  will  continue 
to  advocate  its  preservation,  when  they  see  the  injustice  and 
inequality  of  its  nature,  and  its  anti-republican  tendency.   .    .   . 

The  existing  system  in  this  State,  is  A  representation  of 
CORPORATIONS,  not  of  the  people.  Each  incorporated  town,  if 
such  an  act  of  incorporation  were  passed  previously  to  the 
Revolution,  is  entitled  to  two  representatives ;  if  since  that 
period,  to  one.  No  matter  how  large  or  how  small  these  towns 
may  be;  no  matter  how  many  or  how  few  inhabitants  or 
voters,  or  taxable  polls,  there  may  be,  the  representation  is 
the  same.  Hence,  we  are  fully  justified  in  the  assertion  that 
the  House  of  Representatives  in  Connecticut  are  corporation 
DELEGATES,  and  not  representatives  of  the  people.  Is  this 
democratic?  Are  the  rights  of  the  people  as  such,  secured 
by  this  form  of  government?  Can  the  privileges  of  all  classes 
of  every  description  be  regarded  as  safe,  under  a  representa- 
tion from  Corporations  instead  of  one  direct  from  the  people? 

The  inequality  of  this  mode  of  choosing  the  lower  house  is 
very  easily  seen,  and  but  few  examples  are  necessary  to 
exhibit  it.  At  some  future  time,  we  stand  prepared  to  state 
these  examples  at  length,  and  to  manifest  clearly  the  great 
injustice  done  to  some  parts  of  the  community,  by  allowing 
ourselves  to  be  governed,  through  small  corporations,  or  by 
a  minority,  whether  of  the  inhabitants,  or  people,  or  voters." 

A  few  years  later,  in  1855,  interest  again  became 
intense  upon  this  question,  and  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives proposed  a  bill  calhng  for  a  constitutional 
convention,  which  was  not  approved  by  the  succeeding 
Assembly.  Twelve  years  later,  in  1867,  the  same 
effort  was  made  with  like  lack  of  success.  In  the  early 
seventies,  after  the  results  of  the  census  of  1870  were 
known,  the  injustice  of  the  system  had  become  so  glar- 
ing, that  there  was  a  movement  in  many  parts  of  the 
state   to   accomplish    the    much    needed    reform.     An 


HISTORICAL.  II 

organization  was  accordingly  formed,  known  as  the 
Constitutional  Reform  Association.  It  was  not  then 
considered  a  party  question  and  many  of  the  leading 
members  of  both  political  parties  were  active  members. 
Such  men  as  the  late  Dr.  Leonard  Bacon,  the  late 
Nathaniel  Wheeler,  the  Hon.  Henry  B.  Harrison,  were 
leading  members  of  the  Association,  which  did  a  great 
work  in  giving  the  people  information  upon  the  sub- 
ject, held  meetings  throughout  the  state,  and  did  every- 
thing possible  to  induce  the  legislature  to  call  a  con- 
stitutional convention.  In  all  their  efforts  they  had 
the  sympathy  of  Gov.  Ingersoll,  who  recommended  in 
his  annual  message  that  a  convention  be  called,  and  as 
a  result,  in  1873  and  in  1875  ^  bill  looking  to  that 
end  was  printed  with  the  Session  Laws  by  order  of 
the  Assembly,  but,  as  before,  the  succeeding  Assembly 
withheld  its  approval.  In  1873  the  Hon.  Henry  B. 
Harrison  introduced  a  bill  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, submitting  to  the  people  the  question  of  calling  a 
constitutional  convention.  It  was  defeated  by  a  vote 
of  140  to  69,  an  analysis  of  which  shows  that  it  was 
defeated  by  the  action  of  the  smaller  towns.  The 
three  counties  of  Fairfield,  Hartford  and  New  Haven 
giving  52  votes  in  favor  and  42  against  the  measure, 
whereas  the  five  remaining  counties  of  the  state  gave 
98  votes  against  the  measure  and  only  17  for  it.  In 
1884  Mr.  Harrison  was  chosen  Governor  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  after  having  received  a  minority  of  the 
votes  cast  by  the  people. 

In  1891,  again  after  the  results  of  the  census  of  1890 
had  become  generally  known,  interest  in  this  perennial 
question  again  increased,  and  it  was  then  made  a  party 
question  by  the  action  of  the  democratic  state  con- 


12  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

vention  declaring  in  favor  of  a  constitutional  conven- 
tion, followed  by  the  action  of  the  Democratic  State 
Committee,  which  adopted  a  new  system  of  representa- 
tion at  its  conventions,  based  upon  population,  and 
not,  as  had  been  the  preceding  custom  of  both  parties, 
upon  the  existing  representation  in  the  legislature. 
In  the  following  state  elections  the  democratic  party 
elected  their  candidate  for  Governor,  the  late  Luzon 
B.  Morris,  and  made  gains  in  the  legislature,  which 
result  was  largely  due,  without  doubt,  to  their  position 
upon  this  question.  The  republican  party  at  once  per- 
ceiving that  the  people  of  the  state  w^ere  thoroughly 
aroused,  and  that  a  majority  was  unquestionably  in 
favor  of  some  action  tending  to  remedy  the  patent 
inequalities  and  defects  in  the  constitution,  passed  as  a 
party  measure,  bills  amending  the  constitution  so  as 
to  correct  two  of  its  most  unjust  provisions,  viz. :  the 
law  requiring  the  election  of  Governor  by  a  majority 
of  all  the  votes  cast,  and  the  law  regarding  the  unequal 
and  unjust  apportionment  of  the  Senate. 

It  was  forced  to  do  this  by  the  outspoken  criti- 
cisms of  many  of  its  leading  members,  and  by  the 
almost  universal  demand  of  the  republican  newspapers 
of  the  state,  which  stated  publicly  and  emphatically 
that  if  some  such  action  were  not  taken  immediately, 
to  satisfy  the  very  evident  wish  of  the  people,  that 
fairness  and  justice  should  prevail  in  future  elections, 
the  democrats  would  succeed  in  their  demand  for  a 
constitutional  convention,  and  with  the  aid  of  a  major- 
ity of  the  people  of  the  state,  would  adopt  a  new  con- 
stitution giving  the  reforms  above  mentioned,  and  also 
reform  in  the  present  system  of  town  representation, 
upon  which,  as  is  well  known,  the  republican  party 


HISTORICAL.  13 

depends  for  a  perpetual  control  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, and  a  perpetual  rule  of  the  minority  as 
against  the  majority  in  all  matters  within  the  power 
of  the  General  Assembly. 

In  the  interval  between  the  passage  of  these  bills 
and  the  next  state  convention  of  the  republican  party, 
as  is  well  known,  the  panic  of  1893  occurred,  and  the 
reaction  against  the  party  in  power  in  national  affairs 
set  in,  which  resulted  in  the  land  slide,  so  called,  at 
the  annual  election  in  1894.  Consequently,  at  the 
republican  convention  which  met  in  New  Haven  in 
the  summer  of  1894,  where  the  people  had  been  led 
to  expect  the  party  would  unqualifiedly  indorse  the 
proposed  amendments  of  the  preceding  session  of  the 
legislature,  and  again  promise  their  voters  to  favor 
them  in  the  following  legislature,  so  that  they  might 
be  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification,  the  party 
managers  confident  of  success,  and  feeling  that  there 
was  no  necessity  for  ratifying  the  action  of  the 
preceding  year,  cut  out  from  the  platform  before 
it  was  adopted,  resolutions  of  approval  which  had  been 
submitted  by  leading  members  of  their  own  party,  who 
believed  in  the  amendments  from  principle,  and  also 
believed  in  preserving  their  good  faith  toward  the 
people,  and  those  amendments  have  since  been  known 
in  the  political  history  of  the.  state  as  "the  lost  amend- 
ments." At  the  succeeding  election  the  republican 
party  had  a  majority  of  both  branches  of  the  legisla- 
ture, and  after  attempting  in  many  ways  to  avoid  the 
issue  of  a  direct  vote  upon  these  two  amendments,  but 
failing  therein  on  account  of  the  sincerity  and  con- 
scientious scruples  of  some  of  their  own  representa- 
tives, the  managers  were  finally  compelled  to  let  the 


14  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

question  come  to  a  direct  vote,  and  as  a  party  measure, 
under  the  party  lash,  and  contrary  to  the  vote  of  many 
of  the  ablest  and  best  republican  representatives,  suc- 
ceeded in  defeating  both  amendments,  leaving  the 
party  thereby  exposed  to  serious  charges  of  repudia- 
tion and  lack  of  good  faith  toward  the  people  of  the 
state. 

It  is  deeply  to  be  regretted  that  the  question  has 
become  a  party  measure,  but  such  is  the  fact,  and  at 
the  present  time  the  democrats  are  insisting  upon  it 
as  their  greatest  state  issue. 

Four  times  has  the  House  of  Representatives  pro- 
posed the  calling  of  a  constitutional  convention, — in 
1848,  in  1849,  1855  and  in  1867,  and  every  time  the 
next  assembly  has  failed  to  approve  its  action  by  a 
two-thirds  vote  of  each  house  as  required  by  the  Con- 
stitution. These  attempts  by  no  means  represent  the 
number  of  efforts  that  have  been  made  in  that  direc- 
tion, because  the  advocates  of  the  reform,  seeing  that 
it  was  extremely  difficult  to  get  tw^o  successive  legisla- 
tures to  look  upon  the  question  the  same  way,  adopted 
a  new  plan,  viz. :  that  of  bringing  it  forward  as  a  bill 
for  a  public  act,  which  provided  that  the  people  should 
vote  directly  upon  the  question  of  a  constitutional 
convention. 


CHAPTER    II 

UNEQUAL    REPRESENTATION 

THE  most  notable  defect  in  the  present  constitu- 
tion, and  the  one  that  is  most  at  variance  with 
the  principles  of  popular  government,  is  the  rriethod  of 
electoral  representation  therein  provided.  Originally 
this  method  was  based  upon  a  system  which  the  State 
has  long  since  outgrown,  leaving  it  without  any  sup- 
port in  reason,  justice  or  common  sense.  Connecti- 
cut is  now  the  only  State  in  the  Union  that  does  not 
endeavor  or  profess  to  provide  for  equal  representa- 
tion. She  is  the  only  State  where  the  system  of 
representation  is  not  based  upon  any  principle  what- 
ever; neither  upon  property,  territory  nor  population, 
but  like  Topsy  in  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  has  simply 
"growed.'"  A  system  that  was  framed  to  suit  the 
conditions  of  eighty  years  ago,  when  the  population 
of  the  towns  was  more  nearly  equal,  before  large  cities 
existed,  and  before  the  migration  from  the  rural  dis- 
tricts to  the  manufacturing  centers  had  commenced; 
although  fair  and  equitable  then,  to-day  necessarily 
works  great  injustice.  Connecticut  is  the  only  State 
where  15  per  cent,  of  the  population  can  elect  a 
majority  of  the  representatives  to  the  legislature,  and 
thus  negative  the  action  of  the  representatives  of  85 
per  cent,  of  the  population.  This  is  a  virtual  denial 
of  home  rule,  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities  and 
large  towns  of  Connecticut  might  as  well  live  in 
Ireland,  so  far  as  self-government  is  concerned. 


1 6  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

The  representation  of  the  towns  in  the  legislature, 
given  by  the  constitution  of  1818  was  substantially  fair 
and  just  to  all  sections  of  the  State,  according  to  the 
distribution  of  population  at  that  time.  The  original 
constitution  of  1639  plainly  provided  for  equal  repre- 
sentation in  these  words :  "Deputyes"  sent  to  the 
"Generall  Courte"  should  be  a  "reasonable  propor- 
tion to  the  number  of  freemen  that  are  in  the  said 
townes." 

This  provision  referred  to  towns  that  should  be 
added  to  the  original  three,  Hartford,  Wethersfield  and 
Windsor,  each  of  which  was  allowed  to  send  four 
"deputy  es." 

This  rule  of  equal  representation  was  changed  by 
King  Charles  II.  in  his  charter  of  April  28,  1662, 
wherein  it  was  provided  that  the  people  of  Connecticut 
should  send  "not  to  exceed  two"  deputies  from  any 
one  place,  town  or  city,  to  the  General  Assembly.  The 
convention  of  1818  being  principally  occupied  with 
the  great  struggle  over  religious  toleration,  paid  little 
attention  to  the  question  of  town  representation, 
because  at  that  time  the  migration  from  the  towns 
to  the  cities  had  not  begun,  and  the  relative  populations 
of  the  different  towns  did  not  vary  to  any  great 
extent.  Not  long  after,  owing  to  the  growth  of  man- 
ufacturing and  the  change  of  population,  great  changes 
in  population  began  to  appear,  until  some  time  later 
Bridgeport,  a  new  town,  had  only  one  representative 
for  its  population  exceeding  20,000,  and  many  towns 
having  less  than  2,000  population  had  two  representa- 
tives. The  question  of  town  representation  not  having 
then  become  a  party  question,  the  result  was  that  in 
1874  a  constitutional  amendment  was  adopted,   pro- 


UNEQUAL   REPRESENTATION.  17 

viding  that  every  town  having  a  population  of  5,000 
should  have  two  representatives,  and  in  1876  another 
amendment  was  adopted,  providing  that  no  new  town 
incorporated  thereafter  should  have  any  representa- 
tion as  a  town,  unless  it  contained  a  population  of 
2,500.  By  these  actions  the  people  of  the  State 
acknowledged  the  principle  that  population  should 
be  regarded  as  the  basis  of  representation. 

At  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  present  constitu- 
tion in  18 18,  Connecticut  was  made  up  entirely  of 
country  towns  and  the  difference  in  population  was 
comparatively  unimportant.  By  the  census  of  1820 
it  appears  that  there  were  then  altogether  122  towns  in 
the  State,  of  which  only  nine  had  a  population  exceed- 
ing 4,000,  and  the  largest  of  these  had  only  8,327  inhabi- 
tants. There  were  eleven  towns  with  less  than  1,000 
people,  and  the  smallest  of  these  had  731.  The 
remaining  104  towns  had  not  less  than  1,000,  nor  more 
than  4,000  people.  By  comparing  these  figures  with 
those  given  by  the  census  of  1890,  we  find  there  were 
twenty  towns  with  less  than  600  inhabitants  and  three 
with  over  48,000  each  (Appendix,  p.  136),  and  of 
the  forty-three  towns  which  by  the  census  of  1890 
had  a  population  of  less  than  1,000  each,  thirty-eight 
show  a  decrease  since  1880,  the  total  decreases  from 
them  in  the  aggregate  being  4,592.  The  total  increase 
in  population  of  the  State  between  1880  and  1890  is 
shown  to  be  123,558,  and  of  this  increase  106,203  was 
in  the  towns  having  a  population  of  over  10,000  each, 
none  of  which  have  been  allowed  any  increase  in  repre- 
sentation. Therefore  this  increase  of  over  100,000 
population  in  the  State  in  the  ten  years  intervening 
between  1880  and  1890,  has  no  additional  representa- 
tion whatever. 


i8  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

The  rule  that  no  town  shall  have  more  than  two 
representatives  gives  rise  to  some  curious  anomalies,  as 
is  shown  by  the  following-  list  of  towns  with  their 
population  in  1890. 

New  Haven   86,045 

Hartford    53,230 

Bridgeport    48,866 

Hartland    565 

Killingworth    582 

Union   431 

Each  of  these  towns  is  entitled  to  send  just  two 
representatives  to  the  General  Assembly,  that  is,  the 
431  people  in  the  town  of  Union  have  the  same  voting 
powers  in  the  legislature  as  the  86,045  people  in  New 
Haven. 

The  three  cities  first  above  named,  containing  more 
than  one-fourth  the  population  of  the  entire  State, 
together  can  elect  six  representatives  out  of  a  total 
of  252. 

In  this  connection  we  quote  from  an  argument  made 
by  the  late  Henry  C.  Robinson,  before  the  judiciary 
committee  of  the  legislature,  in  behalf  of  constitutional 
reform : 

"Take  two  towns  a  few  miles  to  the  east  of  us  for  example, 
Andover  and  Bolton.  Andover  cast  117  votes  at  the  late 
Presidential  election  and  Bolton  125  votes.  In  the  same  elec- 
tion New  Haven  cast  17,827  votes  and  Hartford  11,321.  Now 
the  self-government  of  Andover  and  of  Bolton  is  as  sacred 
as  the  self-government  of  Hartford  and  New  Haven.  They 
can  establish  their  own  schools,  care  for  their  own  poor,  make 
their  own  roads,  lay  their  own  taxes  and  manage  their  family 
matter  to  their  own  satisfaction,  subject  only  to  the  common 
laws  of  good  order  and  civilization.  But  I  beg  to  inquire  if 
any  man,  who  really  believes  in  government  by  the  people, 


UNEQUAL   REPRESENTATION.  19 

can  assign  any  reason  why  our  good  friend,  the  citizen  of 
Andover,  shall  have  100  times  the  power  in  legislation  for  the 
commonwealth,  that  a  citizen  of  Hartford  has.  Has  the  citi- 
zen of  Andover  100  times  the  interest  in  taxation,  education 
and  commerce,  that  the  Hartford  citizen  has?  Has  he  100 
times  the  interest  that  each  of  these  Hartford  people,  whom  I 
see  in  the  room,  had  in  the  recent  choice  of  a  United  States 
senator?  And  when  we  remember  that  our  Andover  friend 
has  150  times  the  political  power,  so  far  as  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives is  concerned,  in  making  a  legislature,  which  is  the 
most  powerful  and  important  branch  of  the  sovereignty  and 
the  one  closest  to  the  people,  that  a  citizen  of  New  Haven  has, 
if  any  man  is  simple  enough  to  suppose  that  such  a  state  of 
things  would  receive  the  benediction  of  Thomas  Hooker  and 
John  Davenport,  or  the  approval  of  Roger  Ludlow  and  John 
Winthrop,  or  of  later  Oliver  Wolcott  and  Zephaniah  Swift, 
he  has  drunk  little  at  the  fountains  of  Connecticut  constitu- 
tional democracy." 

The  following  table  was  compiled  and  published  by 
the  Hartford  Times: 

No.  of  voters  repre- 
No.  of  Repre-  Vote  in  sented  by  each 

Town.  sentatives.  Nov.  1890.  representative. 

New  Haven 2  15,309  7,654 

Union 2  96  48 

Hartford 2  9,872  4,936 

Hartland    2  135  67 

Bridgeport    2  7,944  3,972 

Redding    2  301  150 

Norwich    2  4,194  2,097 

Lyme   2  193  96 

Middletown    2  2,379  1,189 

Killingworth    2  123  61 

Dividing  the  towns  into  four  groups  for  purposes  of  show- 
ing the  contrast  between  population  and  representation  in  the 
lower  House,  we  get  these  figures : 


20  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

Group.  Towns.  Representatives.  Population. 

1  3  6  188,141 

2  10  19  188,785 

3  Z7  54  185,744 

4  118  173  183,724 

168  252  746,394 

Here  we  find  173  representatives  for  183,724  persons  in 
group  4  and  only  six  representatives  for  188,141  persons  in 
three  of  the  large  towns. 

Here  are  some  further  comparisons  between  small  and 
large  towns : 

Ten  towns, 
Number  of  voters.  158  small  towns.  embracing  cities. 

November,  1890 76,729  58,526 

Number  of  representa- 
tives    232  20 

No.  of  voters  to  each.  .  330  2,926 

Grand  list $174,000,000  $179,000,000 

Amountof  property  rep- 
resented by  each  mem- 
ber      $756,000  $8,950,000 

In  one  of  the  smallest  towns  of  the  State,  which  has 
the  power  to  send  two  representatives  to  the  legisla- 
ture, it  is  stated  with  more  truth  than  humor  that 
every  man  in  the  town  has  run  for  the  legislature 
once,  and  they  are  now  on  the  second  lap. 

In  the  State  Senate  this  inequality  is  just  as  strik- 
ing and  is  emphasized  by  the  fact  that  it  is  contrary 
to  the  spirit  of  the  constitution,  which  provides  in 
Article  II  of  the  amendments  relating  to  the  appor- 
tionment of  senatorial  districts,  that  regard  shall  be 
had  to  the  population  in  making  said  apportionment. 

The  following  table  giving  the  present  apportion- 
ment, which  was  made  in  1881,  shows  the  numerical 
representation  in  the  so-called  popular  branch  of  the 
General  Assembly. 


UNEQUAL   REPRESENTATION.  21 

Ratio  of  popu- 
Population  Population  No.  of        lation  in  i8»o. 

Counties.  in  1890.  in  1880.  senators.  (i  for) 

Fairfield    150,081  112,042  4  28,011 

Hartford    147,180  125,382  4  31,346 

Litchfield  53,542  52,044  3  17,348 

Middlesex   39,524  35,587  2  17,795 

New  Haven   . .  209,058  156,523  4  39,i3i 

New  London..  76,634  73,i52  3  24,384 

Tolland 25,081  24,115  2  12,057 

Windham  45,i58  43,855  2  21,928 

Whole  State  . .  746,258  622,700  24  25,946 

It  will  be  seen  that  when  this  apportionment  was 
made  Tolland  County  had  one  senator  for  every  12,000 
people,  while  New  Haven  County  had  one  for  every 
39,000,  and  the  city  of  New  Haven  one  for  every 
62,000. 

The  truth  is  that  the  provision  requiring  each 
County  to  have  at  least  two  senators  effectually 
prevents  any  possibility  of  complete  equality  of  repre- 
sentation under  the  present  distribution  of  population 
in  the  several  counties  of  the  State.  By  the  foregoing 
table  for  instance,  it  appears  that  New  Haven  County, 
with  more  than  one-quarter  of  the  population  of  the 
State,  elects  but  one-sixth  of  the  senate,  while  Tol- 
land County,  with  one-thirtieth  of  the  population  of 
the  State,  elects  one-twelfth  of  the  senate.  This 
inequality  and  its  resulting  injustice  has  been  freely 
admitted  by  many  prominent  citizens,  regardless  of 
party,  and  severely  criticized  by  all  the  democratic  and 
independent  papers  of  the  State,  and  also  by  a  majority 
of  the  leading  republican  journals. 

When  we  come  to  consider  how  the  State  of  Con- 
necticut has  complied  with  the  constitution  and  the 
laws  of  the  United  States,  relative  to  the  apportion- 


22  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

ment  of  congressional  districts,  we  are  confronted  with 
a  condition  of  affairs  that  is  at  once  astounding  and 
hvimiHating ;  with  another  proof  that  the  government 
of  Connecticut,  of  all  the  States  in  the  Union,  is 
farthest  removed  from  popular  government ;  that  its 
representation  in  the  National  Congress  is  the  most 
inequitable  and  the  least  in  accordance  with  the  prin- 
ciples upon  which  the  government  of  the  United  States 
was  founded.  The  law  of  Congress  relating  to  the 
apportionment  of  congressional  districts  in  the  States 
is  as  follows : 

"In  each  state  entitled  under  this  apportionment  to  more 
than  one  representative,  the  number  to  which  such  state  may 
be  entitled  in  the  43rd  and  each  subsequent  congress,  shall  be 
elected  by  districts  composed  of  contiguous  territory  and 
containing  as  nearly  as  practicable  an  equal  number  of 
inhabitants." 

Until  1837  representatives  were  elected  in  Connecti- 
cut by  the  people  at  large.  The  last  time  the  State 
was  redistricted  was  in  1842,  and  this  was  in  accord- 
ance with  the  census  of  1840.  At  that  time  the  popu- 
lation of  the  several  congressional  districts  was  as 
follows : 

First  63,609 

Second   73,498 

Third    72,548 

Fourth  90,365 

At  present,  under  the  census  of  1890  the  popula- 
tion of  the  same  districts  is  as  follows : 

First  172,261 

Second   248,582 

Third  121,792 

Fourth    203,623 


UNEQUAL   REPRESENTATION.  23 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  States  which  show  the 
greatest  difference  between  the  most  and  the  least 
populous  congressional  districts,  arranged  in  the  order 
of  this  difference : 

Connecticut  126,790 

South  Carolina   82,143 

Mississippi   81,300 

Louisana    62,760 

Maryland 54,253 

Iowa   49,750 

Virginia   41,931 

Connecticut,  therefore,  shows  the  greatest  dis- 
crepancy in  the  size  of  its  districts  of  any  State  in  the 
Union,  and  is  remarkable  in  having  one  district  that 
contains  more  than  twice  as  many  inhabitants  as 
another  contiguous  district.  This  is  not  a  distinction 
of  which  the  people  of  the  State  can  be  proud,  and 
is  a  fact  that  is  little  known  and  appreciated  by  them. 

Why  this  is  so,  and  why  no  change  has  been  made 
since  the  census  of  1840,  is  a  question  which  must 
be  left  to  the  politicians  to  answer.  The  people  of 
the  State  believe  in  popular  government  and  in  fair 
play,  and  if  they  were  permitted  to  vote  upon  this 
question  would,  regardless  of  party  lines,  insist  upon 
justice  being  done. 

During  the  past  twenty  years  there  have  been  ten 
state  elections,  at  six  of  which  the  democrats  have 
polled  more  votes  than  the  republicans  for  the  state 
ticket.  In  all  this  period,  however,  the  legislature  has 
been  overwhelmingly  republican  on  joint  ballot,  and 
has  therefore  retained  control  of  legislation  and  the 
power  to  elect  United  States  senators  even  when  the 
democrats  succeeded  in  seating  their  candidate  for 
governor. 


24  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

These  facts  clearly  show  that  the  existing  political 
condition  of  Connecticut  as  regards  representation,  is 
a  gigantic  gerrymander. 

In  1888  the  electors  of  the  town  of  Ridgefield,  one 
of  the  small  towns  having  two  representatives,  in  public 
meeting  assembled,  called  the  attention  of  the  voters 
of  Connecticut  to  the  system  of  constitutional  law 
under  which  they  lived  and  urged  upon  all  citizens 
irrespective  of  party, '  their  conviction  that  such  a 
system  was  anti-republican  and  opposed  to  the 
genius  of  American  institutions.  This  address,  which 
attracted  much  attention  and  was  published  far  and 
wide,  among  other  things  stated : 

"At  present  representation  in  the  legislature  bears  no 
relation  whatever  to  the  towns  or  districts  to  which  represen- 
tatives and  senators  are  allotted.  That  is,  the  people  are  not 
represented,  but  only  the  territorial  circumscription;  so  that 
representatives  of  a  small  minority  of  the  people  may,  and  do, 
make  laws  which  govern  the  inhabitants  of  the  whole  state, 
regardless  of  the  silent  protest  of  the  majority,  which  has 
had  no  vote  in  their  enactment.  .A.gain,  in  case  no  candidates 
for  executive  office  receive  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  cast 
at  a  general  election,  the  legislature  by  the  joint  action  of 
House  and  Senate,  has  power  to  force  upon  the  people  a 
Governor  and  State  Officers  who  have  received  a  minority  of 
the  votes  so  cast.  Once  more  it  is  the  legislature  thus  con- 
stituted which  elects  United  States  senators,  so  that  in  the 
general  government,  as  in  their  own  state,  the  majority  of 
the  people  of  Connecticut  are  unrepresented,  or  rather  mis- 
represented. The  reform  of  these  abuses  should  not  be  made 
a  party  question;  it  is  a  question  of  right,  it  appeals  to  the 
sense  of  justice,  and  it  concerns  equally  the  whole  people.  .  .  . 
But  in  order  to  change  the  present  system  action  is  necessary, 
and  men  of  all  parties  should  act  together.  Our  most  popu- 
lous towns  and  cities  which  are  at  present  so  unfairly  repre- 
sented in  the  legislature,  are  the  homes  of  possibly  the  majority 


UNEQUAL   REPRESENTATIOX.  25 

of  the  mechanics,  artisans  and  laboring  men  of  the  state.  They 
have  been  and  are  still  asking  for  legislation  which  they 
believe  will  better  their  condition :  but  such  legislation  it 
would  seem  that  they  cannot  obtain  under  the  existing 
system,  for  the  reason  that  no  matter  how  numerically  strong 
they  may  be,  not  more  than  two  representatives  are  allowed 
to  each  town.  And  they  would  need  to  carry  63  towns  of  2 
representatives  each,  and  13  senatorial  districts,  at  the  same 
election  to  obtain  a  majority  to  advocate  their  interests.  It 
is  plain  that  if  representation  were  based  upon  numbers,  they 
would  be  far  more  favorably  situated.  It  is  not,  however 
in  the  interest  of  any  class,  but  in  the  interest  of  justice  and 
of  the  welfare  of  the  people  of  the  whole  state,  that  we  urge 
this  reform." 

President  Cyrus  Northrup,  in  an  address  before  the 
Yale  Law  School,  referring  to  the  present  iniquitous 
system  of  representation  in  Connecticut,  said : 

"The  gerrymander  is  the  deadliest  assassin's  stab  aimed  at 
the  heart  of  justice,  that  has  ever  been  devised.  It  is  the  most 
gigantic  of  all  grand  larceny, — the  larceny  of  a  people's  rights. 
No  matter  where  it  exists,  or  when  or  how  it  began,  no  matter 
whether  it  is  venerable  with  antiquity  and  free  from  original 
taint  of  injustice,  as  in  Connecticut,  or  whether  it  be  fresh 
in  its  infamy,  as  in  states  where  it  has  been  brought, — let  it 
by  all  means  be  swept  out  of  existence  everywhere  and  be 
buried  in  an  eternal  grave.  This  nation  can  live  and  prosper 
only  by  justice." 

The  Hon.  Alfred  E.  Burr,  the  venerable  editor  of 
the  Hartford  Times,  a  few  years  before  his  death  said 
publicly : 

"We  are  a  by-word  and  a  disgrace  in  ever}'  part  of  the 
country  to-day  on  account  of  the  inequality  and  the  injustice 
of  our  state  constitution." 

Although  these  inequalities,  shown  by  the  above 
figures,  must  seem  unjust,  the  actual  facts  of  the  case 


26  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.    ' 

are  far  worse  because  of  the  great  changes  in  popula- 
tion during  the  last  twenty  years,  in  which  the  cities 
have  increased  largely  in  population  and  the  towns 
have  either  decreased  or  remained  stationary. 

Popular  government  in  Connecticut  is  a  sham.  It 
does  not  exist  either  in  the  choice  of  governor  nor 
in  the  choice  of  United  States  senators,  nor  of 
congressmen,  nor  in  representatives  or  senators  to 
the  General  Assembly.  The  minority  rules  the 
majority  and  has  done  so,  with  a  few  exceptions,  for 
more  than  a  generation.  It  is  a  live  oligarchy  mas- 
querading under  the  name  of  popular  sovereignty ;  it 
is  despotism  pure  and  simple,  in  accordance  with  the 
definition  given  by  ex-Speaker  Reed  when  he  said, 
"despotism  was  never  anything  more  than  the  rule 
of  the  few  over  the  many." 

Under  the  present  constitution  the  towns  of  Con- 
necticut do  not  stand  on  a  par  one  with  another  in  the 
legislature  with  reference  to  representation.  Some 
towns  have  two  representatives,  while  others  with 
a  much  larger  population  have  but  one,  showing 
that  the  present  apportionment  is  arbitrary  and  not 
based  upon  any  principle  whatever.  This  being  so, 
the  plan  to  give  the  larger  towns  increased  representa^ 
tion  in  accordance  with  their  population,  without  tak- 
ing from  any  town  its  present  right  to  send  one  or  two 
representatives  to  the  legislature,  in  no  manner  detracts 
from  the  position,  power  and  dignity  of  any  single 
town,  and  is  in  no  true  sense  to  be  considered  an 
attack  upon  the  general  system  whose  best  friends 
desire  to  maintain  it  in  all  its  pristine  vigor  and  per- 
fection, but  who  are  opposed  to  having  it  made  an 
excuse  for  sustaining  and  maintaining  such  a  travesty 


UNEQUAL   REPRESEXTATIOX.  27 

upon  popular  government  as  the  present  town  system 
in  Connecticut  has  in  the  course  of  the  last  seventy-five 
years  become. 

The  remedy  is  plain,  and  in  full  accord  with  the 
political  history  and  traditions  of  the  State,  and  in  no 
way  looks  toward  the  abandonment  of  the  idea  of 
town  representation.  The  true  friends  of  that  principle 
are  only  desirous  that  the  system  shall  be  brought 
back  to  its  starting  point  and  made  to  accord  with  the 
views  of  the  framers  of  the  constitution  of  1639. 
^^''hat  they  desire  is  that  it  shall  be  a  system  based 
upon  present  conditions,  upon  reason  and  justice,  in 
order  that  an  outraged  community  may  not  at  some 
future  time,  smarting  under  the  absurdity  and  wrong- 
fulness of  the  present  system,  arise  in  its  might  and 
abolish  it  altogether. 


CHAPTER  III 

ARGUMENTS  IN  FAVOR  OF  PRESENT  SYSTEM 

A  FAVORITE  argument  in  support  of  unequal  rep- 
resentation in  the  legislature  is  that  in  the  State 
of  Connecticut  the  town,  and  not  the  individual,  is  the 
political  unit;  that  the  present  system  of  town  repre- 
sentation is  as  just  as  the  equal  representation  of  the 
large  and  small  States  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
and  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  our 
constitution  to  make  the  town,  and  not  the  individual, 
the  unit  of  representation,  disregarding  thereby  the 
great  inequalities  of  population ;  but  a  careful  investi- 
gation will  show  that  this  argument  is  without  histori- 
cal basis  and  entirely  fallacious. 

That  this  claim  is  without  foundation  and  that  such 
a  principle  was  never  adopted,  is  clearly  shown  by  the 
amendments  to  the  constitution  of  i8i8,  which  have 
been  passed  at  different  times  whenever  the  injustice 
and  inequality  in  any  particular  case  became  so  rank 
as  to  require  immediate  attention.  In  1874  these 
inequalities  had  become  so  glaring  and  outrageous 
that  a  constitutional  amendment  was  adopted,  provid- 
ing that  every  town  having  a  population  of  5,000  shall 
be  entitled  to  two  representatives  ;  and  in  1876  another 
amendment  provided  that  any  new  town  incorporated 
after  that  date  should  have  no  representation  as  a 
town  unless  it  contained  a  population  of  2,500,  but 
should  in  that  case  go  back  and  vote  with  the  old  town. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  these  two  amendments 
utterly  destroy  the  claim  that  town  representation  was 


IN  FAVOR  OF  PRESENT  SYSTEM.     29 

intended  to  be  similar  to  State  representation  in  the 
United  States  Senate  without  any  regard  to  population, 
for  these  amendments  acknowledged  the  principle 
that  population  should  be  regarded  as  the  basis  of 
representation.  The  very  fact  that  the  number  of 
representatives  from  different  towns  has  varied  from 
one  to  four,  proves  that  such  was  not  the  intention, 
because  the  essence  of  the  theory  of  State  representa- 
tion in  the  United  States  Senate  is  that  it  shall  be 
equal  regardless  of  size  or  population. 

States  are  sovereign  as  to  certain  of  their  powers, 
and  can  properly  be  units  of  representation ;  the  towns 
are  not  sovereign  and  therefore  cannot  be  political 
units.  Towns  have  been  and  can  be  sliced  up  by  the 
legislature  and  their  representation  can  be  changed. 
Some  towns  have  been  denied  by  the  State  any  repre- 
sentation at  all,  as  was  provided  for  in  the  amend- 
ment passed  in  1876,  and  as  was  done  in  many  cases 
referred  to  in  the  following  chapter  where  towns  sent 
no  deputies  to  the  General  Assembly  during  the  time 
that  they  were  relieved  from  paying  the  colonial  taxes. 

Another  historical  fact  tends  more  effectively  than 
anything  else,  to  demolish  the  argument  that  the 
present  system  of  town  representation  is  to  be  con- 
sidered a  parallel  ease  to  the  system  of  State  repre- 
sentation in  the  United  States  Senate.  Many  towns 
which  formerly  had  two  representatives  have  been 
carved  up  into  smaller  towns,  each  one  of  which  sends 
one  or  more  representatives  to  the  legislature.  But  all 
are  comprised  within  the  original  territory  of  the  old 
one. 

The  only  other  argument  that  is  advanced  by  the 
friends  of  the  present  system  of  representation,  is  that 


so  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

it  was  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  Connecticut 
constitution  that  the  house  of  representatives  should 
represent  the  towns  and  not  individuals,  whereas  the 
senate  was  intended  to  be  the  popular  branch  of  the 
legislature,  representing  directly  the  people.  The  only 
answer  necessary  to  this  argument,  is  that  the  assump- 
tions contained  in  it  as  to  the  intentions  of  the  founders 
of  our  government  are  not  true,  as  can  be  clearly 
shown  by  a  little  investigation. 

The  preamble  to  the  fundamental  articles  of  1639 
reads  as  follows : 

"We  the  inhabitants  and  residents  of  Windsor,  Hartford 
and  Wethersfield  are  now  cohabiting  and  dwelling  in  and  upon 
the  river  of  Connecticut  and  the  lands  thereunto  adjoining, 
and  well  knowing  where  a  people  are  gathered  together,  the 
word  of  God  requires  that  to  maintain  the  peace  and  union  of 
such  a  people,  there  should  be  an  orderly  and  decent  govern- 
ment established  according-  to  God  to  order  and  dispose 
of  the  affairs  of  the  people  at  all  seasons  as  occasion  shall 
require;  do  therefore  associate  and  conjoin  ourselves  to  be 
one  Public  state  or  Commonwealth,  and  do  for  ourselves  and 
our  successors  and  such  as  shall  be  adjoined  to  us  at  anj'  time 
hereafter,  enter  in  combination  and  confederation  together  to 
preserve  the  purity  of  the  Gospel,  the  discipline  of  the 
Churches,  and  to  be  guided  in  civil  affairs  according  to  the 
orders  laid  down  in  the  succeeding  eleven  articles." 

The  preamble  of  the  constitution  of  1818  acknowl- 
edges the  sovereignty  of  the  people  in  the  following 
words : 

"The  people  of  Connecticut,  acknowledging  with  gratitude 
the  good  providence  of  God  in  having  permitted  them  to  enjoy 
a  free  government,  do,  in  order  more  effectually  to  define, 
secure  and  perpetuate  the  liberties,  rights,  and  privileges 
which  they  have  derived  from  their  ancestors,  hereby,  after  a 
careful  consideration  and  revision,  ordain  and  establish  the 
following  Constitution  and  form  of  civil  government." 


IN  FAVOR  OF  PRESENT  SYSTEM.     31 

In  the  case  of  Webster  versus  Harwinton,  32(1  Con- 
necticut Reports,  page  137,  decided  1864,  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  State  settled  the  law  upon  this  question, 
in  an  opinion  which  says,  referring  to  the  constitution : 

"That  extraordinary  instrument  purports  on  its  face  to  be 
the  work  of  the  people,  the  residents  and  inhabitants,  the  free 
planters  themselves,  of  the  three  towns.  It  recognizes  the 
towns  as  existing  municipalities,  but  not  as  corporate  or  inde- 
pendent, and  makes  no  reservation  expressly  or  impliedly,  of 
property  or  of  legislative  power,  in  their  favor." 

See  also  State  vs  Fyler,  48  Conn.,  145,  and  Turney  vs 
Bridgeport,  55  Conn,,  412. 

It  therefore  appears  that  the  theory  that  the  original 
constitution  of  Connecticut  was  a  federation  of  the 
towns  instead  of  being  the  act  of  the  people  of  the 
State  in  their  collective  capacity,  is  not  supported  by 
the  fundamental  orders  of  1639,  nor  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  18 18,  and  has  been  expressly  repudiated  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State. 

As  showing  the  falsity  of  the  claim  that  the  senate 
is,  and  was  intended  to  be,  the  popular  branch  of  the 
legislature,  representing  directly  the  people,  we  have 
only  to  refer  to  the  first  two  amendments  to  the  con- 
stitution adopted  November,  1828,  which  provide: 

Article  First. 
"The  Senate  of  this  state  shall  consist  of  not  less  than  18 
nor  more  than  24  in  numbers,  to  be  chosen  by  districts." 

Article  Second. 

"The  General  Assembly     .     .     .     shall  divide  the  State  into 

districts  for  the  choice  of  Senators  and  shall  determine  what 

numbers   shall   be   elected   in   each,   which   districts   shall   not 

be  less  than  8  nor  more  than  24  in  number  and  shall  always 


32  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.  ■ 

be  composed  of  contiguous  territory  and  in  forming  them  no 
towns  shall  be  divided  nor  shall  the  whole  or  a  part  of  one 
County  be  joined  to  the  whole  or  a  part  of  another  County 
to  form  a  district;  regard  being  had  to  the  population  in  said 
apportionment  and  in  said  districts  in  such  manner  that  no 
County  shall  have  less  than  two  Senators.  The  districts  when 
established  shall  continue  the  same  until  the  session  of  the 
General  Assembly  next  after  the  completion  of  the  next  cen- 
sus of  the  United  States     .     .     ."     Italics  are  ours. 

As  will  be  seen,  it  is  a  hollow  mockery  to  claim  that 
any  popular  representation  in  the  senate  can  be 
obtained  under  the  present  conditions  of  population  in 
tlie  State  of  Connecticut.  Under  the  provisions  con- 
tained in  these  two  amendments  in  1828  the  law  was 
susceptible  of  a  fair  construction  because  there  were 
no  large  cities  at  that  time  and  the  several  counties  did 
not  differ  greatly  in  population.  But  at  present  it 
is  utterly  impossible  to  comply  with  the  law  and  at 
the  same  time  provide  for  anything  like  a  fair  or 
equitable  representation  of  the  people. 

First — Since  town  boundaries  may  not  be  broken  in 
making  senatorial  districts,  no  town  can  have  more 
than  one  senator,  no  matter  how  great  may  be  its 
population. 

Second — Since  each  county  must  have  at  least  two 
senators,  a  popular  apportionment  is  impossible,  since 
there  are  already  three  or  four  counties  in  the  State 
lacking  sufficient  population  to  entitle  them  to  more 
than  one. 

History  shows  that  it  never  was  intended  to  make 
the  senate  the  popular  body;  on  the  contrary  it  is 
plain  that  it  was  patterned  after  the  United  States 
Senate. 


IN  FAVOR  OF  PRESENT  SYSTEM.     33 

The  simple  truth  is  that  our  forefathers  who  framed 
this  constitution  did  not  foresee  the  great  change  in 
social  and  economic  conditions,  resulting  from  the 
movement  of  population  from  the  towns  to  the  cities, 
and  naturally  did  not  provide  for  such  changes,  leaving 
it  to  future  generations  of  law-makers  to  do  as  they 
were  doing  at  that  time,  to  frame  a  new  constitution 
whenever  justice  and  the  exigencies  of  time  should 
demand  it. 


CHAPTER   IV 

PLURALITY  ELECTIONS 

THE  constitution  of  1639  provided  unequivocally 
for  plurality  elections  of  State  officers,  in  the 
following  words :  "He  that  hath  the  greatest  number 
(plurality)  of  papers  (votes)  shall  be  governor  for  that 
year."  This  was  slightly  modified  by  the  King  Charles 
Charter  of  1662,  wherein  we  find  the  words,  "greater 
part"  of  the  voters,  referring  to  the  election  of  Colonial 
officers  and  of  deputies.  In  1742  the  general  assembly 
passed  a  statute  providing  that  in  case  there  was  no 
election  of  Colonial  officers  by  a  majority  of  the  popu- 
lar vote,  the  legislature  should  then  elect  them,  and 
this  action  seems  to  be  the  origin  of  our  present 
majority  rule,  having  been  re-affirmed  in  the  consti- 
tution of  1818. 

In  Section  II,  Article  4,  of  the  constitution,  relating 
to  the  election  of  State  officers,  is  the  following  provi- 
sion : 

"If  no  person  shall  have  a  majority  of  the  whole  number 
of  said  votes,  or  if  two  or  more  shall  have  an  equal  and 
the  greatest  number  of  said  votes,  then  said  Assembly  on  the 
second  day  of  their  session,  by  joint  ballot  of  both  houses, 
shall  proceed  without  debate,  to  choose  a  Governor  from  a  list 
of  the  names  of  the  two  persons  having  the  greatest  number 
of  votes,  or  of  the  names  of  the  persons  having  an  equal  and 
highest  number  of  votes  so  returned  as  aforesaid." 

The  result  of  this  provision  has  been  that  time  and 
time  again,  a  man  has  been  chosen  governor  by  the 
legislature,  who  at  the  popular  election  received  less 


PLURALITY    ELECTIONS.  35 

votes  than  his  opponent,  and  in  1890  it  was  the  direct 
cause  of  the  disgraceful  deadlock  in  the  legislature, 
whereby  the  rightfully  elected  candidate  for  governor, 
who  had  received  a  clear  majority  of  all  the  votes  cast, 
was  i^revented  from  taking  the  office. 

Connecticut  and  one  or  two  others  are  the  only 
States  in  the  Union  which  adhere  to  this  old  require- 
ment that  candidates  for  state  offices  must  receive  a 
majority  of  all  the  votes  cast,  instead  of  a  plurality. 
That  this  rule  is  right,  few  have  the  temerity  to  assert. 
It  has  been  abolished  with  reference  to  all  other  offices, 
state  and  national,  and  the  only  reason  that  it  is 
retained  is  that,  in  connection  with  the  system  of  legis- 
lative misrepresentation,  one  party  is  enabled  to  hold 
on  to  an  unfair  advantage  over  the  other. 

Year  after  year  one  party  has  gone  on  casting  more 
votes  for  its  candidate  for  governor  than  the  other, 
and  year  after  year  a  legislature,  controlled  by  the 
party  which  polled  the  smaller  number  of  votes,  made 
up  principally  from  towns  which  do  not  represent 
half  of  the  state  population,  has  elected  and  installed 
its  candidate  upon  the  state  ticket,  because  in  order 
to  have  an  election  by  the  people  it  is  necessary  that 
one  party  should  have,  not  the  highest  number  of 
votes  cast,  but  a  majority  over  the  aggregate  of  all 
votes  cast  by  the  different  parties.  How  long  the 
State  will  continue  to  suffer  under  this  system  of 
misrepresentation  is  for  the  individual  voter  to  deter- 
mine. Many  of  the  public  men  and  some  of  the  lead- 
ing papers  in  the  State,  irrespective  of  party,  have 
expressed  themselves  in  favor  of  righting  this  grievous 
wronsf. 


36  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

If  we  examine  the  history  of  the  State  for  the  past 
twenty  years,  we  find  the  practical  working  of  this  rule 
has  been  as  follows : 

Vote  for  Governor.  Legislature. 

Dem.  Rep.        Officers  seated.      Senate  House. 

880 64,293  67,070  Rep.  Rep.  Rep. 

882 59,014  54.853  Dem.  Rep.  Rep. 

884 67,910  66,274  Rep.  Rep.  Rep. 

886 58,818  56,920  Rep.  Rep.  Rep. 

888 75.074  73,659  Rep.  Rep.  Rep. 

890 67,658  63,975  Rep.  Dem.  Rep. 

892 82,787  76,745  Dem.  Tie  Rep. 

4 66,287  83.975  Rep.  Rep.  Rep. 

6 56,524  108,807  Rep.  Rep.  Rep. 

8 64,227  81,015  Rep.  Rep.  Rep. 

During-  this  period  of  twenty  years,  including  ten 
general  elections,  the  elections  of  governor  by  the 
people  were  only  six,  viz. : 

1880 Bigelow  (Rep.) 

1882 Waller  (Dem.) 

1892 Morris  (Dem.) 

1894 Coffin  (Rep.) 

1896 Cooke  (Rep.) 

1898 Lounsbury  (Rep.) 

Whereas  the  figures  show,  in  the  years  1884,  1886, 
t888  and  1890  the  democratic  candidate  had  a  plurality 
over  the  republican  ranging  from  over  1,000  to  over 
3,000  votes,  but  in  every  case,  either  by  the  action  or 
the  non-action  of  the  legislature,  the  democrats  were 
deprived  of  the  office. 

Concerning  this  antiquated  provision  of  the  State 
constitution  and  the  injustice  of  its  work,  the  late  Gov. 
Morris,  in  his  message  to  the  general  assembly  in 
Januarv,  1893,  expressed  the  following  views: 


PLURALITY    ELECTIONS.  37 

"If  we  are  to  retain  popular  government  in  Connecticut  the 
constitution  should  be  so  changed  that  the  votes  of  the  people, 
as  cast  on  election  day,  should  have  their  full  efifect.  It  is 
seldom  that  the  executive  officers  of  this  State  are  those  who 
have  received  a  plurality  of  the  people's  votes.  In  forty  of 
the  forty-four  States  of  the  Union  a  plurality  vote  elects  the 
State  officers.  In  every  State  admitted  into  the  Union  during 
the  present  century  a  plurality  vote  elects.  In  this  State  the 
plurality  vote  elects  the  Presidental  elector,  members  of  Con- 
gress, State  Senators  and  Representatives,  Sheriffs,  and 
Judges  of  Probate.  No  good  reason  can  be  shown  why  the 
executive  officers  of  the  State  should  not  be  elected  by  a 
plurality  vote.  In  no  other  way  can  the  votes  of  the  people 
be  given  their  full  effect.  The  law  as  it  is  habitually  works 
injustice,  and  a  law  that  habitually  works  injustice  cannot  be 
respected.  It  may  be  obeyed  because  it  is  a  law,  but  the 
whole  moral  effect  of  the  law  is  lost  when  it  cannot  be 
respected  as  well  as  obej-ed." 

More  than  700  other  officers  in  the  State  are  elected 
by  the  plnraHty  rule,  the  only  exception  being  in  the 
case  of  State  officers,  and  it  is  impossible  to  give  any 
valid  reason  why  the  same  rule  shotild  not  apply  to 
them.  It  is  fortunate  that  although  some  of  the  parti- 
zan  leaders  have  endeavored  to  make  this  a  party  ques- 
tion, they  have  not  succeeded,  because  nearly  all  of  the 
lepublican  papers  of  the  State  have  refused  to  regard 
it  as  such  and  are  strenuous  and  outspoken  in  their 
advocacy  of  a  change.  The  same  may  be  said  of  many 
of  the  most  prominent  and  influential  members  of  the 
party. 

In  order  to  show  most  clearly  that  the  position  taken 
upon  this  question  is  by  no  means  partizan,  an  edi- 
torial is  reproduced  from  the  Ansonia  Sentinel,  one 
of  the  leading  republican  journals  of  the  State,  and 
one  that  does  not  hesitate  forcibly  and  freely  to  express 


38  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION! 

its  views  of  right  and  wrong,  regardless  of  their  effect 
upon  the  party : 

"It  is  a  pit}'.  The  party  which  goes  before  the  people  making 
distinct  pledges  of  reforming  the  Constitution,  and  then  delib- 
erately refuses  to  keep  its  word,  forfeits  the  confidence  of 
the  people,  causes  disgust  and  deserves  reprobation.  We  have 
read  no  tenable  arguments  against  the  plurality  election  meas- 
ure ;  we  have  read  hundreds  of  solid  truths  uttered  for  it. 
We  cannot  see  why  the  same  principle  applied  to  Congress- 
men, Senators,  and  Representatives.  Town  and  City  Officers, 
isn't  good  for  State  Officers.  Why  the  distinction?  It  is 
a  relic  of  old  times  which  ought  to  be  swept  oflf  the  statute 
books.  Connecticut,  we  believe,  stands  alone  in  this  respect. 
Connecticut  has  always  been  in  the  front  rank  in  moral 
reform.  Why  should  we  go  back  to  the  rear  rank  in  this 
matter?  It  is  a  monstrous  wrong  and  though  the  legislature 
refuses  to  right  it,  the  people  will  see  that  it  is  done  sooner 
or  later." 

Several  arguments  are  advanced  in  favor  of  the 
majority  rule  as  it  has  existed  in  the  State  since  1742. 

The  first  is  hardly  worthy  of  notice,  being  a  mere 
quibble,  a  tricky  play  upon  words  calculated  to  reach 
the  unthinking,  but  is  mentioned  here  because  it  is 
often  heard  in  political  harangues  and  partizan  edi- 
torials. It  is  that  since  this  is  a  government  of  the 
people,  the  majority  should  rule  and  therefore  the 
majority  rule  is  right.  A  very  plausible  statement 
indeed,  but  one  which  will  not  stand  the  test  of  practi- 
cal application.  Rightly  understood  and  properly  con- 
strued, no  one  disputes  its  correctness,  but  at  an 
election  where  there  are  at  least  four  parties  in  the 
field,  supporting  four  distinct  tickets,  it  is  frequently 
the  case  that  no  one  receives  a  majority  of  all  the  votes 
cast,  and  then  the  question  arises,  what  is  the  fair  and 


PLURALITY    ELECTIONS.  39 

proper  course  to  pursue, — what  course  will  be  most 
in  accordance  with  democratic  principles,  and  will  tend 
to  do  justice  to  the  greatest  number  of  people  in  the 
State. 

Three  courses  are  open  : 

First — To  call  a  new  election  and,  if  necessary,  keep 
on  having  new  elections  until  some  one  of  the  four 
tickets  receives  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  cast.  This 
plan,  as  will  be  readily  seen,  is  practically  impossi- 
ble in  any  popular  election,  for  the  reason  that  it  might 
continue  indefinitely. 

The  second  plan  is  the  one  provided  by  the  consti- 
tution, whereby  the  choice  of  officers  voted  for  is  taken 
from  the  people  and  relegated  to  some  other  body, 
which  may  or  may  not  represent  the  wishes  of  a 
majority  of  the  electors  entitled  to  vote,  and  which 
may,  as  has  been  the  case  so  often  in  Connecticut, 
elect  a  candidate  who  did  not  poll  nearly  as  many 
votes  as  one  of  his  opponents. 

The  third  method,  and  the  one  that  is  almost  uni- 
versally employed,  and  which  affords  the  only  just 
and  fair  solution  of  the  difficulty,  is  the  application  of 
the  plurality  rule :  that  is,  let  the  candidate  be  declared 
elected  who  has  received  the  most  votes,  even  if  all  the 
other  parties  together  may  have  cast  a  greater  number 
of  votes.  Only  in  this  way  can  justice  be  done  to  the 
greatest  number  of  people,  and  only  in  this  way  is  the 
problem  solved  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the 
general  principle  that  the  majority  should  rule. 

Another  argument  advanced  in  behalf  of  the 
majority  rule  is  that  it  should  be  maintained  because 
it  has  been  the  rule  of  the  State  for  more  than  150 
years.     An    argument    which    does    not    deserve    an 


40  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.  ' 

answer,  its  very  statement  being  sufficient  to  show  its 
lack  of  reason  and  strength.  The  fact  may  be  here 
mentioned,  however,  that  in  the  constitution  of  1639, 
the  pkirality  rule  was  established  and  was  the  law  of 
the  State  for  100  years,  and  no  good  reason  has  ever 
been  adduced  for  making  the  change. 

The  last  reason  advanced,  is  that  this  is  the  same 
principle  which  prevails  in  the  choice  of  President 
and  Vice-President  by  the  electoral  college,  where 
the  constitution  provides  that  in  case  no  person  have  a 
majority,  the  election  shall  devolve  upon  the  House 
of  Representatives. 

Upon  reflection  it  must  be  observed  that  there  is  a 
great  and  vital  distinction  between  the  two  cases,  and 
that  they  are  by  no  means  on  a  parity.  It  was  not  the 
intention  of  the  framers  of  the  federal  constitution 
that  the  choice  of  President  should  be  made  directly 
by  the  people,  as  individuals,  or  that  the  popular 
majority  should  of  itself  elect  a  President,  the  provi- 
sion for  the  machinery  of  the  electoral  college  being 
inserted  in  order  to  maintain  the  balance  of  power 
between  the  large  and  the  small  States. 

That  this  position  is  correct  is  clearly  shown  by 
the  fact  that  in  providing  for  the  election  of  congress- 
men and  presidential  electors,  the  constitution  adheres 
to  the  plurality  principle. 


CHAPTER    V 

LEGISLATURE  HAS  TOO  MUCH  POWER 

HAVING  in  the  preceding  chapters  considered 
two  defects  of  the  constitution  which  are  most 
widely  known,  we  now  come  to  others  which  are  not  so 
frequently  mentioned,  and  which,  fortunately,  have  not 
been  dragged  into  the  arena  of  partizan  politics. 
These  have  arisen  since  the  formation  of  the  constitu- 
tion, because  the  instrument  in  many  of  its  minor 
provisions  is  no  longer  fitted  to  present  conditions, 
and  by  reason  of  their  insidious  character  are  possibly 
more  potent  for  evil  than  any  of  those  already  dis- 
cussed. They  are  defects  which  arise  from  a  lack 
of  the  proper  coordination  of  the  pow-ers  of  govern- 
ment. 

In  its  present  working  the  constitution  of  1818 
reminds  one  of  an  oligarchy  instead  of  a  republic,  in 
that  the  legislative  branch  of  the  government  has  an 
undue  amount  of  control  over  the  executive  and  judi- 
cial branches,  to  an  extent  that  is  not  seen  in  the  con- 
stitution of  any  other  State  in  the  Union,  or  in  the 
federal  constitution,  and  this  arises  simply  from  the 
fact  that  the  State  has  neglected  to  revise  its  constitu- 
tion in  aiccordance  with  the  changed  condition  of 
affairs,  and  still  retains  provisions  that  were  proper 
in  1818,  but  which  are  now  sources  of  evil. 

Article  II  of  the  constitution  says,  "The  powers  of 
government  shall  be  divided  into  three  distinct  depart- 
ments, and  each  of  them  confided  to  a  separate  magis- 
tracy, to  w^it :  those  which  are  legislative,  to  one ;  those 


42  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

which  are  executive,  to  another;  and  those  which  are 
judicial,  to  another." 

In  spite  of  this  distinct  division  of  governmental 
powers,  the  authority  of  the  legislature  has  always 
been  practically  paramount,  and  in  many  ways  has  it 
infringed  upon  the  powers  that  would  seem  naturally 
to  belong  to  one  of  the  other  two  departments,  and 
the  legality  of  this  course  has  been  justified  by  the 
decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Starr 
vs.  Pease,  8th  State  Reports,  547,'  and  Wheeler's 
Appeal,  45  Connecticut  Reports,  315,  in  which  latter 
case  it  is  decided  that  whatever  the  legislature  does 
is  within  its  power  if  "not  against  natural  justice 
or  the  national  constitution,  and  it  does  not  appear 
affirmatively  and  expressly  that  there  is  some  provi- 
sion in  the  constitution  forbidding  it." 

The  power  in  the  legislature  to  interfere  with  ques- 
tions properly  arising  under  the  other  departments 
of  the  government,  has  only  resulted  in  weakening  the 
executive  and  judicial  branches  and  at  times  has  pro- 
duced consequences  that  were  fraught  with  evil  to  the 
State,  without  being  in  any  way  a  protection  to  the 
rights  of  the  people  or  an  advantage  to  the  legislature 
itself.  The  exercise  of  these  unusual  powers  by  the 
law-makers  has  ofttimes  occupied  their  attention  to 
the  exclusion  of  their  more  proper  function  as  law- 
makers, and  has  given  rise  to  charges  of  deals  and 
improper  influences  that  have  tarnished  the  fair  name 
of  the  State.  The  only  political  scandals  in  Connecti- 
cut have  been  in  connection  with  the  legislature;  the 
executive  and  the  judicial  departments  having  been 
singularly  free  even  from  the  suspicion  of  wrong 
doinsf. 


LEGISLATURE  HAS  TOO  MUCH  POWER.       43 

When  we  say  that  the  legislature  has  too  much 
power,  we  refer  to  the  power  that  has  been  taken  by 
the  existing  constitution  from  the  executive,  which 
means  the  power  chosen  by  the  people  to  execute  the 
laws,  or  from  the  judicial,  which  means  the  bulwark 
of  protection  to  the  people  against. the  encroachments 
of  injustice  by  the  legislature  or  the  executive. 

The  tendency  seems  to  be  to  merge  all  the  powers 
of  government  into  the  legislature.  In  the  preceding 
chapter  we  have  alluded  to  the  fact  that  in  certain 
contingencies  the  legislature  has  the  power  to  choose 
the  executive.  The  election  of  the  judges  of  the 
inferior  courts  by  the  legislature,  as  is  now  the  practice, 
is  always  certain  to  be  productive  of  deals  and  to  lead 
to  the  use  of  improper  arguments  or  influences,  and 
necessarily  to  the  election  of  an  inferior  class  of  men 
to  fill  judicial  positions.  Most  publicists  are  agreed 
that  judges  should  be  chosen  either  by  the  executive, 
subject  only  to  confirmation  by  the  legislature,  or 
should  be  elected  directly  by  the  people,  and  that  in 
these  w^ays  only  can  the  purity  and  ability  of  the  bench 
be  properly  guarded. 

Even  in  the  case  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  and 
Superior  Courts,  who  are  appointed  by  the  executive, 
subject  to  the  will  of  the  legislature,  the  executive 
has  no  power  even  to  fill  a  vacancy  in  these  courts 
temporarily,  pending  the  meeting  of  the  legislature, 
and  it  will  be  remembered  that  on  account  of  the  dead- 
lock in  the  legislature  of  1891,  a  vacancy  existed  for 
more  than  a  year  on  the  Superior  Court  bench  at  a 
time  when  the  interests  of  the  State  urgently  required 
that  it  should  be  filled,  because  the  legislature  refused 
to  consider  that  or   anv   other  business. 


44  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

The  power  given  to  the  legislature  to  elect  County 
Commissioners  is  a  power  that  in  no  way  relates  to 
the  legislative  department  of  the  government,  but 
should  be  exercised  either  by  the  executive,  or  pre- 
ferably, by  the  direct  vote  of  the  people.  The  scan- 
dal and  corruption  arising  from  the  exercise  of  this 
power  has  often  been  a  disgrace  to  the  State,  and  is 
referred  to  in  detail  in  Chapter  IX. 

The  duties  of  the  County  Commissioners  are  clearly 
of  an  executive  nature.  Their  authority  is  vast  and 
far-reaching  in  its  effects,  including  among  others  the 
power  to  pardon  criminals,  to  regulate  licenses  and  to 
appoint  prosecuting  attorneys  for  the  enforcement  of 
the  liquor  law.  The  office  can  be  used  to  build  up  a 
great  political  machine,  and  for  that  reason,  although 
the  salary  is  small  and  the  distinction  is  not  regarded 
as  especially  great,  the  position  of  County  Commis- 
sioner is  much  desired  by  the  party  managers. 

Elected  as  they  are  by  the  legislature,  at  the  bidding 
of  a  caucus  of  the  members  from  each  county  belong- 
ing to  the  party  in  power,  they  are  in  reality  responsi- 
ble to  no  one  for  their  official  action  and  no  one  can 
be  held  responsible  for  them. 

Authority  and  responsibility  ought  always  to  go 
together,  and  every  executive  officer  should  be  elected 
by  the  people,  to  whom  he  would  be  directly  responsi- 
ble, or  appointed  by  some  one  who  is  solely  responsible 
for  the  appointment  and  who  is  accountable  to  the 
people.  The  election  by  the  legislature  entirely  elimi- 
nates the  question  of  responsibility  from  the  equation. 

The  power  to  grant  special  charters  for  public  or 
private  corporations  for  which  the  State  of  Connecticut 
is  noted,  not  to  sav  notorious,  is,  from  the  very  nature 


LEGISLATURE  HAS  TOO  MUCH  POWER.       45 

of  the  case,  a  corruption-breeding  power,  and  in  most 
of  the  States  is  prohibited  by  the  constitution,  and  its 
place  is  taken  by  general  incorporation  acts  under 
which  the  citizen  can  proceed  without  going  to  the 
legislature  and  under  which  all  have  the  same  rights. 

Why  should  not  all  the  railroad  corporations,  all 
the  insurance  companies,  all  the  municipalities  and  all 
the  many  stock  companies  in  the  State  now  organized 
or  to  be  formed  in  the  future,  be  subject  to  uniform 
laws  which  Avould  provide  for  all  reasonable  business 
contingencies  ?  Why  should  it  be  necessary  to  employ 
the  lobby  in  case  a  corporation  desires  to  change  its 
name  or  to  enlarge  its  business?  Why  should  men, 
desirous  of  organizing  a  social  club  or  a  manufactur- 
ing corporation,  be  compelled  to  procure  political  influ- 
ence in  order  to  get  from  the  State  the  requisite  char- 
ter? Why  should  not  the  legislature  itself  desire  to 
be  relieved  of  a  questionable  power,  which  necessarily 
leads  to  favoritism  in  its  treatment  of  corporations  of 
the  State,  and  which  leaves  every  legislator  open  to  the 
charge  of  improper  influence? 

That  such  a  power  is  not  necessary  to  protect  the 
State  as  to  the  corporations  that  may  be  chartered,  is 
shown  by  the  results  of  the  general  incorporation  laws 
in  New  York,  Massachusetts  and  New  Jersey,  whose 
corporation  charters  are  regarded  with  the  highest 
favor  in  the  financial  world.  That  such  a  power  is 
not  strictly  legislative  is  self-evident  and  that  it  is 
productive  of  favoritism  and  corruption,  let  any  man 
who  doubts  apply  for  a  charter. 


CHAPTER    VI 

EXECUTIVE  HAS  TOO  LITTLE  POWER 

JUST  as  the  proper  coordination  of  power  between 
the  three  departments  of  government  is  destroyed 
by  giving  too  much  to  the  legislature,  the  evil  is  corre- 
spondingly increased  by  giving  too  little  to  the  execu- 
tive branch  of  the  government. 

The  so-called  veto  power  of  the  Governor  in  Con- 
necticut amounts  to  nothing  more  than  giving  him  an 
opportunity  to  express  his  opinions  to  the  legislature 
regarding  any  bill  to  which  he  cannot  give  his  official 
sanction,  for  the  general  assembly,  after  receiving  a 
veto  message,  can  make  the  bill  a  law  by  a  simple 
majoritv  vote.  A  moment's  reflection  suffices  to  show 
that  this  gives  the  executive  no  real  veto  power  and 
but  slight  influence  in  the  passage  of  laws;  no  check 
upon  hasty,  irresponsible  or  unwise  legislation,  and 
that  although  he  has  the  veto  power  in  name,  it 
amounts  to  nothing  as  a  matter  of  fact.  Most  of  the 
States  in  the  Union  give  the  executive  a  real  veto 
power,  requiring,  in  order  to  pass  a  bill  over  his  veto, 
that  more  than  a  majority  must  vote  in  its  favor. 
This  is  also  the  case  in  the  National  legislature. 

Speaking  of  the  importance  of  the  veto  power,  in  the 
debates  upon  this  subject  at  the  time  of  the  framing 
of  the  federal  constitution,  Benjamin  Franklin  said: 

"A  single  man  may  be  afraid  or  ashamed  of  doing 
injustice;  a  body  is  never  either  one  or  the  other,  if 
it  is  strong  enough.     It  cannot  apprehend  assassina- 


EXFXUTIVE  HAS  TOO  LITTLE  POWER.         47 

tion,  and  by  dividing  the  shame  among  them,  it  is  so 
Httle  apiece  that  no  one  minds  it.'' 

And  more  than  one  hundred  years  later  the  late 
Alex.  Johnston,  the  eminent  Connecticut  historian  and 
Professor  of  Jurisprudence,  approving  of  the  workings 
of  the  rule  requiring  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  legisla- 
ture in  order  to  pass  any  bill  over  the  objection  of  the 
executive,  wrote  as  follows : 

"The  American  veto  system  seems  to  have  struck  the 
safest  middle  line,  and  attempts  to  modify  it  elsewhere 
have  generally  proven  injurious." 

With  the  law  as  it  stands  at  present,  the  people  of 
Connecticut  do  not  dignify  their  executive  by  giving 
him  any  real  power  either  positive  or  negative  over 
legislation.  His  signature  to  the  law  is  merely  per- 
functory, but  by  no  means  necessary,  and  in  this  regard 
he  is  nothing  more  than  a  figure-head.  In  the  case  of 
hasty,  ill-advised,  imperfect,  absurd  and  corrupt  legis- 
lation, the  people  cannot,  as  is  the  case  in  other  States, 
appeal  to  the  executive  to  interpose  an  effective  veto, 
and  having  no  power,  he  is  not  responsible  in  the 
matter,  and  the  blame  and  odium  and  punishment  for 
such  legislation  has  to  be  divided  between  several 
hundred  members  of  the  General  Assembly,  each  of 
whom  usually  succeeds  in  shifting  the  blame  upon 
some  one  else. 

Contrast  this  system  with  the  advantages  possessed 
by  other  States,  where  in  case  of  important  legislation, 
concerning  which  there  is  a  great  diversity  of  public 
feeling,  the  Governor  can  appoint  hearings  to  which 
the  people  of  the  State  may  come  and  express  their 
individual  views  for  or  against  the  approval  of  the  bill, 
and  where  the  executive  realizes  that  he  will  be  held 


48  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

individually  responsible  for  the  success  or  failure  of 
the  law. 

In  all  branches  of  the  executive  department  there  is 
a  similar  restriction  and  denial  of  power  with  its  cor- 
responding responsiblity.  The  prosecuting  agents,  or 
State's  Attorneys  so-called,  are  either  elected  by  the 
judges,  by  the  legislature  or  by  the  county  commis- 
sioners, and  are  responsible,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  only 
to  the  power  which  gives  them  the  office. 

The  present  incumbents  of  the  office  of  State's  Attor- 
ney are,  without  exception,  members  of  standing,  char- 
acter and  ability,  and  no  personal  criticism  can  be  made 
on  account  of  the  way  they  have  performed  their 
duties.  But  the  objections  to  the  system  remain  the 
same,  the  greatest  of  which  is  the  fact  that  receiving 
their  appointment  from  the  judges,  before  whom  they 
practice,  they  are  necessarily  creatures  of  the  court 
and  cannot  be  in  the  fullest  sense  independent  officers 
thereof. 

The  prosecuting  attorney  should  feel  as  he  enters 
the  court  room,  that  he  is  a  part  of  the  executive 
department  of  the  government,  that  he  is  charged  with 
grave  duties  in  protecting  the  interests  of  the  people 
of  the  commonwealth;  that  he  is  responsible  alone  to 
his  oath  and  to  the  people;  that  he  is  just  as  inde- 
pendent of  the  presiding  judge  as  is  the  executive 
himself. 

The  very  essence  of  the  idea  of  justice  and  fair- 
ness in  a  trial  at  law,  is  that  each  of  the  contend- 
ing parties  shall  be  represented  before  the  judge  by 
fearless,  independent  counsel  who  are  under  no  obliga- 
tion whatever  to  him,  and  who  will  not  fail,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  manner  provided  by  law,  to  object  to 


EXECUTIVE  HAS  TOO  LITTLE  POWER.         49 

or  criticize  the  rulings  of  the  court.  It  is  contrary 
to  human  nature  to  expect  such  a  position,  such  an 
attitude  can  be,  or  will  be  strongly  maintained  by 
prosecuting  attorneys,  when  they  are  dependent  upon 
the  judges  for  their  election  and  for  their  continuance 
in  office. 

The  system  of  appointing  prosecuting  attorneys 
in  the  minor  civil  courts  of  the  State  is  open,  in 
a  greater  degree,  to  the  same  objections,  and  there 
is  this  further  objection,  viz. :  that  the  appointment  is 
too  often  the  result  of  a  deal,  made  before  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  judge  of  the  court  himself  by  the  legis- 
lature. 

The  State  would  be  better  governed  if  the  powers 
of  the  executive  department  were  enlarged,  in  order 
to  correct  these  very  patent  evils. 

The  State's  Attorney  should  be  elected  by  the  people 
of  each  county,  or  appointed  by  the  Governor,  and 
should  have  charge  and  control  of  all  public  prose- 
cutions of  whatever  nature  within  their  respective 
counties.  These  officers  should  all  be  subject  to  the 
general  control  of  the  executive,  and  should  be  per- 
mitted to  appoint  their  own  assistants. 

Although  this  plan  contemplates  taking  from  the 
judicial  department  a  certain  amount  of  power  and 
patronage  which  it  at  present  enjoys,  it  is  believed  that 
for  the  reasons  stated  the  change  would  receive  the 
cordial  approval  of  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  higher 
judges  of  the  State,  who  are  interested  above  all  things 
in  the  independence  and  absolute  purity  of  the  bench. 


CHAPTER    VII 

JUDICIAL  DEPARTMENT 

PORTUNATELY  for  the  commonwealth,  the 
A  encroachments  of  the  legislative  department 
upon  the  judicial  department,  which  prevailed  to  an 
alarming  extent  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  consti- 
tution of  1818,  and  wdiich  caused  a  large  share  of 
the  discontent  which  finally  resulted  in  the  adoption 
of  that  constitution,  were  by  its  terms  abolished,  and 
the  judicial  department,  in  most  of  its  workings  for 
the  past  eighty-two  years,  can  be  referred  to  by  every 
citizen  with  pride. 

The  only  modifications  that  are  now  needed  are 
in  the  nature  of  applying  the  principles,  then 
adopted  for  the  higher  courts  to  the  minor  courts, 
which  have  increased  with  the  growth  of  popula- 
tion and  the  passage  of  the  years.  The  late  Chief 
Justice  Church,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State,  in 
a  manuscript  history  of  the  constitution  now  in  posses- 
sion of  the  New  Haven  Colony  Historical  Society,  said, 
in  speaking  of  the  position  of  the  judiciary  at  the  time 
of  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  1818: 

"The  courts  of  law  were  most  complained  of  as 
being  partizan  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties.  The 
judges  were  annually  appointed  and  an  independent 
judiciary  was  loudly  and  earnestly  demanded." 

In  a  very  able  paper  entitled  "The  Three  Constitu- 
tions of  Connecticut,"  written  by  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  members  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
State,  occur  the  following  passages : 


JUDICIAL   DEPARTMENT.  51 

"In  the  constitution  of  1818,  the  Judiciary,  for  the  first 
time,  was  recognized  as  a  co-ordinate  department,  and  its 
character  was  greatly  elevated  by  extending  the  term  of  office 
for  Judges  of  the  higher  courts  to  that  of  good  behavior, 
except  the  provision  for  retirement  in  case  of  any  who  reach 
the  age  of  seventy. 

"Thus  was  extinguished  a  real  grievance  of  the  people — that 
of  seeing  their  judges  dependent  for  their  seats  on  the  annual 
pleasure  of  the  General  Assembly,  the  upper  house  of  which 
was  generally  composed  largely  of  lawyers,  whose  good  will 
no  judge  could  afford  to  be  wholly  unmindful  of  conciliating. 

"By  the  changes  mentioned  in  the  election  of  the  judiciary, 
there  has  been,  I  think,  a  decided  gain.  Legislative  appoint- 
ments to  judicial  office  are  dictated  largely  by  personal  con- 
siderations. Members  of  the  legislature  itself  are  apt  to 
receive  them,  if  they  desire  it,  and  this  not  only  opens  the 
door  to  bargains,  but  practically  narrows  the  field  of  choice. 
A  caucus  of  a  legislative  body  is  also  less  responsible  to  public 
opinion  than  a  political  convention  of  party  delegates,  whose 
candidate  must  run  the  gauntlet  of  a  popular  election ;  and 
less  responsible  still  than  any  single  magistrate  to  whom  the 
nomination  may  be  confided. 

The  reduction  of  the  term  of  office  of  Judges  of  our  higher 
Courts  to  eight  years,  has  inevitably  tended  to  lower  their 
spirit  of  independence,  and  make  them  more  amenable  to  the 
influence  of  public  opinion.  This  was  the  intent  of  the  change, 
and  it  has  been  accomplished.  I  cannot  but  think  that  in  this 
point  the  framers  were  wiser  than  the  amenders  of  the  con- 
stitution. The  judiciary  is,  in  its  nature,  the  weakest  of  the 
departments  of  government.  It  exists  to  administer  and  apply 
laws  which  others  make  and  others  execute.  The  private 
citizen  goes  there  to  secure  protection.  He  is  separated  from 
the  Governor,  or  the  General  Assembly,  by  everything  except 
his  vote ;  but  the  Courts  are  at  every  man's  hand,  and  their 
doors  are  always  open.  The  citizen  ought  to  find  there  a 
power  strong  enough,  and  self-asserting  enough,  to  vindicate 
his  rights  against  unjust  attack  from  any  quarter,  though  it 
be  the  highest;  and  to  secure  this  cffcctuall)^  the  judge 
ought  to  be  trammelled  with  no  thought  of  a  re-election,  and 


52  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

no  fear  of  the  disapproval  of  Governor  or  legislature,  which 
he  would  not  feel  in  equal  measure  for  that  of  any  equal  num- 
ber of  honest  men  in  private  stations." 

The  same  evils  complained  of  at  that  time  with 
reference  to  the  higher  judges,  exist  now  to  a  greater 
or  less  degree  in  the  case  of  all  the  minor  judges 
appointed  by  the  legislature,  and  it  is  clear  that  the 
only  reason  the  constitution  was  not  then  made  to 
include  these  minor  judgeships,  was  because  at  that 
time  there  was  little  need  for  them.  This  evil  has 
since  been  recognized  in  many  ways,  especially  in  1850, 
when  an  amendment  was  proposed  to  make  members 
of  the  General  Assembly  ineligible  to  most  of  the 
important  offices  within  its  gift,  but  which  was 
defeated,  as  might  have  been  expected. 

Everyone  who  is  familiar  with  the  workings  of  the 
legislature  and  the  lobby  at  Hartford,  can  point  to 
many  cases,  where  there  has  been  a  contest  for  appoint- 
ment as  judge  by  the  legislature  between  two  or  more 
candidates,  where  would-be  wearers  of  the  ermine 
have  not  hesitated  to  use  all  the  arts  of  the  politician, 
and  where  the  result  has  usually  been  a  deal  giving 
the  office  to  one  contestant,  upon  his  promising  to 
appoint  his  chief  opponent  assistant  judge  or  clerk  or 
prosecuting  attorney  of  his  court. 

The  late  Governor  Morris,  in  his  annual  message  to 
the  General  Assembly  in  January,  1893,  said: 

"Now  with  the  legislative  department  constituted  as  we 
have  shown,  and  with  the  executive  department  elected  by  the 
legislative  department,  let  us  examine  the  judicial  depart- 
ment. The  Constitution  provides  that  Judges  of  our  higher 
Courts  shall  be  nominated  by  the  Governor  and  appointed 
by  the  General  Assembly,  that  is,  the  legislative  department. 


JUDICIAL   DEPARTMENT.  53 

Thus  we  see  that  with  a  Governor  elected  by  the  legislative 
department,  members  of  the  judicial  department  are  nomi- 
nated by  him,  and  are  appointed  by  the  same  legislative 
department.  Thus,  to  a  great  extent,  we  find,  that  under  our 
defective  constitution  the  three  departments  of  government 
are  merged  in  one,  the  legislative  department.  The  framers 
of  the  original  constitution  did  not  intend  this,  but  intended 
that  the  three  departments  should  be  kept  separate.  This 
condition  of  things  has  arisen  through  the  patchwork  of 
amendments,  that  has  been  attached  to  the  original  consti- 
tution, and  through  the  changes  in  population  and  pursuits  of 
the  people." 

By  reason  of  the  great  number  of  minor  courts  and 
judges,  and  the  great  frequency  with  which  they  are 
elected  by  the  legislature,  it  is  said  that  Connecticut 
has  more  judges  than  all  of  England,  and  it  has  become 
a  common  saying  that  judges  are  more  plentiful  in 
Connecticut  than  colonels  in  Kentucky. 

One  other  encroachment  upon  the  judicial  function 
should  here  be  mentioned,  relating  to  the  system  of 
choosing  trial  jurors. 

The  statute  provides  that  in  each  town,  officers 
known  as  the  "Constituted  Authorities"  consisting  of 
the  justices  of  the  peace,  constables,  selectmen  and 
grand  jurors,  shall  meet  twice  a  year  and  select  trial 
jurors.  The  result  is  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  the 
so-called  "Constituted  Authorities"  neglect  their 
duties,  and  do  not  attend  unless  they  happen  to  be 
interested  in  placing  some  friends  upon  the  jury  list, 
as  was  shown  In'  one  meeting  in  Hartford,  where  out 
of  sixty-five  who  were  authorized  to  select  jurors, 
only  seven  were  actually  present. 

The  result  of  such  a  system  and  its  evil  tendencies 
can  readily  be  seen,  and  it  is  a  pleasure  to  know  that 


54  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.' 

the  Law  and  Order  League  of  the  State  has  taken  a 
decided  interest  in  this  matter,  and  is  making  strenuous 
efforts  looking  toward  a  reform  of  the  system. 

The  power  to  select  jurors  is  one  that  should  not 
be  delegated  to  any  man  or  number  of  men,  but  in 
order  to  get  the  best  results  from  the  jury  system, 
everv  voter  should  be  on  the  list  and  should  be  required 
to  do  jury  duty  when  his  name  is  drawn  by  lot,  except- 
ing when  he  is  excused  by  the  court  for  good  and 
sufficient  reasons.  Of  course  it  is  appreciated  that 
this  is  a  matter  of  statute  law,  and  can  be  changed  by 
the  legislature  without  an  alteration  of  the  constitu- 
tion, but  the  present  contention  is,  that  the  constitu- 
tion itself  should  require  that  the  statutes  observe  the 
proper  coordination  of  the  three  departments  of  gov- 
ernment, and  that  no  encroachment  of  the  powers  of 
one  department  upon  those  of  aaiother  should  be 
permitted. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

UNEQUAL  TAXATION 

HAVIXG  considered  the  chief  defects  of  the  pres- 
ent constitntion,  we  now  take  up  some  of  their 
inevitable  consequences. 

During  the  eighteenth  century,  the  relation  between 
taxation  and  representation  was  fully  recognized  by 
the  general  court  of  the  colony  in  many  ways.  In  a 
very  interesting  and  instructive  article  upon  town 
representation,  prepared  by  the  State  Librarian,  than 
whom  there  is  no  better  authority  upon  this  subject, 
we  find  the  following : 

"New  towns  were  excused  from  paying  taxes  to  the  colony 
during  the  difficulties  of  their  first  beginnings ;  and  as  taxa- 
tion and  representation  were  coupled,  they  sent  no  deputies 
to  the  General  Assembly :  Thus  Litchfield,  settled  about  1720, 
sent  none  until  1740;  Barkhamsted  and  Colebrook,  named  in 
1732,  incorporated  as  towns  1779,  were  not  represented  until 
October,  1796;  Winchester,  named  1733,  given  town  privileges 
1771,  was  first  represented  in  1781  ;  so  when  in  1720,  the  east 
parish  of  Greenwich  was  exempted  from  public  taxes  for 
four  years,  to  enable  them  to  maintain  the  gospel  ministry, 
it  was  provided  that  the  town  should  send  during  that  period 
but  one  deputy  at  the  public  charge;  so  in  1725,  Ashford  was 
exempted  from  public  taxes  for  two  years,  with  a  proviso 
that  they  neither  send  deputies  nor  draw  money  for  their 
school  during  said  term ;  and  so  in  1730,  New  Jvlilford  was 
freed  from  public  taxes  for  two  years,  provided  they  should 
pay  the  salaries  of  any  deputies  they  should  send  to  the 
Assembly  during  that  time." 


56  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.  ' 

During'  the  nineteenth  century,  however,  under  the 
present  constitution  a  change  has  taken  place  in  regard 
to  taxation,  until  now  Connecticut  is  the  only  State 
that  can  be  accused  of  enforcing  taxation  without  due 
representation.  One  of  the  cardinal  principles  for 
which  our  forefathers  fought,  and  to  which  they 
adhered  in  the  establishment  of  this  government,  was 
that  there  should  be  no  taxation  without  representa- 
tion, but  precisely  that  evil  has  existed  in  Connecticut 
for  many  years. 

It  may  be  said  in  answer  to  this,  however,  that 
there  is  no  tax  levied  directly  upon  the  people 
for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  the  state  govern- 
ment, because  a  sufficient  revenue  is  derived  from  taxa- 
tion upon  corporations,  and  other  like  sources,  to  pro- 
duce the  funds  needed  for  state  purposes.  This  has 
been  the  case  for  the  last  few  years,  but  no  one  can  say 
that  the  time  may  not  soon  come  when  it  will  again 
be  necessary  to  levy  a  state  tax.  However  this  may 
be,  the  revenue,  from  whatever  source,  belongs  to  the 
State  as  a  whole,  and  the  people  of  the  State  are 
entitled  to  an  equal  voice  in  voting  how  and  for  what 
purposes  that  money  should  be  disbursed.  Connecti- 
cut is  the  only  .State  where  the  residents  of  the  cities 
are  virtually  disfranchised  in  all  that  pertains  to  State 
matters,  because  their  voting  power  in  the  legislature 
is  only  ecjuivalent  to  a  small  fraction  of  that  of  the 
residents  of  the  smaller  towns. 

Reflect  upon  the  rank  injustice  of  such  a  system  of 
taxation  and  misrepresentation  in  detail  for  a  moment, 
and  we  will  refer  you  again  to  the  trite  comparison 
of  the  towns  of  Union  and  New  Haven;  one  with 
less     than     500    inhabitants,     and    taxable     property 


UNEQUAL   TAXATION.  57 

assessed  at  $124,405,  and  the  other  with  about 
100,000  inhabitants  and  an  assessment  of  $78,041,453. 
One,  according  to  the  census,  becoming  still  smaller 
and  the  other  growing  larger  year  by  year,  and  yet 
the  town  of  Union  sends  two  representatives  to  our 
legislature,  and  the  city  of  New  Haven  is  entitled  to 
only  two,  and  these  representatives  with  others  from 
different  parts  of  the  State  are  vested  with  the  power 
to  make  laws,  to  elect  many  of  the  judges  and  other 
state  officials,  and  even  the  Governor  himself,  at  times, 
and  of  deciding  for  what  purposes  the  money  belong- 
ing to  the  State  shall  be  used.  Any  man  in  the  town 
of  Union,  by  his  vote,  has  two  hundred  times  as  much 
power  as  the  Mayor  of  New  Haven  or  the  President 
of  Yale  University  when  it  comes  to  the  election  of  a 
United  States  senator,  or  the  election  of  the  Governor 
of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  in  cases  where  the  election 
falls  to  the  legislature,  or  in  the  disbursement  of  the 
state  funds,  or  in  deciding  the  policy  of  the  State 
regarding  taxes  or  in  any  matter  whatever. 

The  men  of  small  means  in  the  cities,  who  own  their 
little  homes,  have  as  great  an  interest  in  the  subject 
of  equal  taxation  as  the  resident  of  the  smaller  towns, 
and  have  a  moral  right  to  an  equal  vote  regarding 
taxes.  The  same  is  true  of  the  laboring  man  in  the 
city  who  owns  no  taxable  property,  because  he  pays 
his  share  of  taxes  in  increased  cost  of  house  rent, 
and  to  him  the  amount  that  he  is  so  required  indirectly 
to  pay  means  a  great  deal  more  than  the  taxes  paid  by 
those  who  are  favored  with  more  of  this  world's  goods. 
Every  dollar  that  is  taken  from  such  men  in  taxes, 
whether  direct  or  indirect,  means  a  denial  of  some 


58  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

comfort  or  even  necessary  that  they  might  otherwise 
have  enjoyed. 

On  the  23d  of  May,  1895,  the  Hartford  Times  pub- 
lished a  table  of  the  general  receipts  and  general  expen- 
ditures of  the  State  according  to  counties,  which 
showed  more  clearly  than  in  any  other  way  the  injus- 
tice of  the  present  system  of  taxation  when  considered 
with  reference  to  representation.  This  statement  is 
complete  for  the  preceding  fiscal  year,  with  the  excep- 
tions that  the  benefactions  of  the  State  in  the  w^ay  of 
hospitals,  asylums,  soldiers'  home  and  kindred  institu- 
tions are  not  given,  as  these  distributions  could  not 
be  readily  classified  by  counties.  For  the  same  reason 
the  amount  of  taxes  on  railroads,  which  for  that  year 
aggregated  $766,420.76,  is  not  included  in  the  state- 
ment of  receipts,  as  is  also  the  case  W'ith  reference  to 
the  receipts  from  the  collateral  inheritance  tax  w^hich 
for  the  year  amounted  to  $74,179.07.  These  omis- 
sions pertaining  strictly  to  general  state  matters,  in  no 
way  affect  the  conclusions  reached  by  an  examination 
of  the  following  table. 

Summarizing  the  results  of  its  investigations  the 
Times  said : 

"The  figures  show  conclusively  that  the  bulk  of  the  general 
taxes  paid  in  this  State,  exclusive  of  the  railroad  tax,  is 
paid  by  Hartford  county.  During  the  last  fiscal  year  the 
taxes  paid  by  the  county  amounted  to'  $437,175.92,  and  it 
received  from  the  State,  for  support  of  schools,  court  expenses 
and  other  general  expenditures,  the  sum  of  $140,167.10.  These 
comparisons  by  counties  in  columns,  showing  the  general 
taxes  paid  into  the  Treasury  and  the  amounts  received  there- 
from, will  tell  the  story. 


UNEQUAL    TAXATION.  59 

They  are  as  follows : 

Paid  into  Received 

Treasury.  therefrom. 

Hartford $437,175.92  $140,167.10 

New  Haven 101,053.64  238,282.14 

New  London 70,737.62  80,738.60 

Fairfield   80,373.42  180,760.52 

Windham  17,132.54  40,413.65 

Litchfield 24,998.24  50,391.81 

Middlesex  26,334.74  32,920.28 

Tolland  10.916.48  21,882.99" 

The  representation  in  the  legislature  by  counties  is 
as  follows : 

Senators.     Representatives.      Total. 

Hartford  4  45  49 

New  Haven  4  36  40 

New  London 3  30  32 

Fairfield 4  32  36 

Windham    2  24  26 

Litchfield 3  41  44 

Middlesex  2  22  24 

Tolland   2  22  24 

24  252  276 

Comparison  of  these  tables  seems  to  make  argument 
unnecessary,  but  the  following  letter  from  a  prominent 
citizen  of  the  State  shows  how  the  taxpayers  regard 
the  situation : 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Times: 

The  analysis  of  State  receipts  and  expenditures  published 
in  the  Titnes  of  the  23d  inst.  is  very  instructive  as  an  exhibit 
of  the  shameful  inequality  of  taxation  in  Connecticut. 

It  is  not  generally  known,  as  it  should  be,  that  in  every 
County  in  the  State  there  is  a  large  annual  deficit  to  the 
State  Treasury  with  the  single  exception  of  Hartford  County. 
By  the  Treasurer's  report  for  the  fiscal  year  of  1894  these 
deficits  are  chargeable  as  follows : 


6o  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

Expenses   Over  Receipts. 

Dr. 

New  Haven  Count}-  $127,228.50 

New  London  County  10,000.98 

Fairfield  County  100,387.10 

Windham  County 23,281.14 

Litchfield  County 25,393.57 

Middlesex  County 5,585.54 

Tolland  County 10,966.57 


$302,843.40 

Surplus  Over  Expenditures. 

Cr. 
Hartford  County   $105,629.24 

The  surplus  of  Hartford  County  in  the  State  Treasury  pays 
the  deficit  of  Litchfield,  New  London,  Windham,  Middlesex 
and  Tolland,  $75,227.80,  and  leaves  a  balance  of  surplus, 
$30,401.44,  to  be  applied  on  remaining  counties.  Hartford,  in 
short,  pays  her  own  way,  and  contributes  a  fraction  less  than 
35  per  cent,  to  the  payment  of  the  deficit  in  all  other  coun- 
ties. Hartford  could  well  afiford  to  build  the  bridge  if  all 
other  counties  would  pay  their  own  way,  and  keep  their 
accounts  square  with  the  State  Treasury. 

The  taxes  on  railroads  are  not  considered  in  these  com- 
parisons because  they  are  not  the  local  institutions  of  any 
particular  county.     .     .     . 

The  attacks  which  have  been  made  on  Hartford  by  members 
of  the  present  General  Assembly  are  without  precedent  in  the 
history  of  legislation  in  this  State.  We  need  not  be  ignorant 
of  the  many  devices  by  which  Hartford  interests  have  been 
bartered  away  to  promote  personal  ambitions.  The  lobby  has 
been  constantly  filled  with  those  who  have  been  retained 
to  shift  the  burdens  assumed  by  the  State  upon  Hartford 
and  adjoining  towns.  Virtues  have  been  assumed  which  are 
not  possessed,  by  crying  out  against  the  lobby  work  of  past 
sessions,  and  quietly  whispering  instructions  in  the  ears  of 
those  who  are  charged  with  the  management  of  the  present 
lobby. 


UNEQUAL   TAXATION.  6i 

Bills  have  been  introduced  for  no  other  purpose  than  the 
eflfect  which  they  were  designed  to  have  on  pending  ques- 
tions,— a  very  old  trick  in  legislation,  and  better  understood 
in  the  lobby  than  in  the  House. 

Hartford  has  been  badly  treated  by  those  who  have  volun- 
teered to  stand  guard  over  her  interests  for  personal  ends. 

These  towns  which  receive  from  the  State  Treasury  more 
than  they  are  ever  called  upon  to  pay,  are  the  only  towns 
interested  in  the  maintenance  and  payment  of  the  lobby  of 
189s,  employed  to  repeal  the  bridge  act,  which  they  declare 
was  passed  by  the  influence  of  the  lobby  in  1893.  The  superior 
virtue  which  is  claimed  for  the  1895  lobby  is  not  apparent. 

One  thuig  is  certain :  We  have  outgrown  a  system  which 
gives  a  small  town,  of  less  population  than  the  smallest 
school  districts  in  Hartford  and  New  Haven,  the  same  vote 
in  the  General  Assembly  as  that  enjoyed  by  the  largest  cities 
in  the  State.  The  time  has  come  when  that  eminently  unfair 
system  of  unequal  representation  should  be  changed  to  a  sys- 
tem more  compatible  with  a  democratic  form  of  government. 

James  G.  Batterson." 

This  disregard  of  the  elementary  principles  of  taxa- 
tion works  injustice  in  many  ways,  and  no  single  class 
is  entirely  exempt  from  it. 

Representatives  from  towns  having  less  than  one- 
third  the  population  and  wealth  of  the  State  have  the 
absolute  power  to  vote  away,  against  their  will,  the 
money  of  the  inhabitants  of  other  towns  and  counties 
having  more  than  double  the  population  and  taxable 
wealth.  This  is  oligarchy,  pure  and  simple,  and 
would  not  be  tolerated  in  any  other  State  in  the  Union 
or  in  any  civilized  country  in  the  world. 

Another  startling  illustration  of  the  gross  iniquity 
and  injustice  of  this  method  of  taxation  is  shown  by 
the  recent  tax  law,  authorizing  the  expenditure  of 
money   under  the   supervision   of  the   highway  com- 


62        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

mission,  in  the  construction  of  roads  throughout  the 
State, — a  law  which  meets  with  the  approval  of  every- 
one so  far  as  its  object  is  concerned,  but  which  has 
been  severely  criticized  on  account  of  the  way  it 
was  enacted.  For  instance:  the  grand  list  of 
Fairfield  County  aggregated  in  round  numbers  over 
$100,000,000:  of  this  sum  Bridgeport  has  about  one- 
half,  the  result  being  that  of  any  tax  levied  under  this 
law,  the  citizens  of  Bridgeport  will  be  compelled  to  pay 
one-half,  while  in  the  legislature  which  enacted  this 
law,  of  the  thirty-two  representatives  and  four  senators 
from  Fairfield  County,  Bridgeport  had  but  three, 
that  is  one-twelfth  of  the  entire  representation.  If 
anyone  has  the  hardihood  to  claim  that  such  a  system 
of  taxation  for  any  object,  however  meritorious,  is 
just  and  fair,  the  people  of  Bridgeport  undoubtedly 
will  be  pleased  to  hear  his  reasons. 

Vide  appendix,  p.  136.  Statement  showing  the 
population  of  each  town  in  the  State,  and  its  repre- 
sentation in  the  legislature. 


CHAPTER    IX 

CIVIC  CORRUPTION 

IN  the  consideration  of  the  results  that  flow  from 
the  imperfections  of  the  constitution,  we  now  come 
to  one  that  is  by  far  the  most  serious,  the  most  injuri- 
ous to  the  people,  and  the  one  that  has  done  the  most 
to  discredit  the  fair  name  of  the  State.  The  subject 
is  approached  with  regret,  and  only  because  of  the  con- 
viction that  the  best  and  quickest  way  to  cure  an  evil 
in  the  body  politic,  is  to  acknowledge  the  real  truth 
and  let  the  people  know  the  exact  facts. 

Of  all  the  States  in  the  Union,  not  one  is  more 
notorious  for  civic  and  political  corruption  than  Con- 
necticut, and  but  two  or  three  can  be  said  to  equal 
it  in  this  respect.  A  statement  so  serious  as  this  must 
be  shown  to  be  true  by  the  best  kind  of  proof,  by  undis- 
puted facts,  and  by  the  evidence  of  witnesses  of  all 
parties  and  all  professions,  who  are  free  from  any 
suspicion  of  personal,  partizan  or  interested  motives. 
This  we  will  proceed  to  do : 

The  Hon.  E.  S.  Day,  ex-chairman  of  the  Republican 
State  Committee,  a  politician  of  large  experience  and  a 
man  of  recognized  foresight  and  shrewdness,  in  a 
Memorial  Day  address,  1895,  at  Norwich,  is  reported 
by  the  Hartford  C  our  ant  to  have  said  r 

"Is  it  not  cause  for  feelings  of  shame  and  disgrace  that  in 
this  grand  old  commonwealth  of  Connecticut,  where  lived, 
labored  and  wrought  for  its  highest  welfare,  such  men  as 
Hooker,  Wolcott,  Trumbull,  Ellsworth,  Baldwin,  Buckingham, 
and  many  others  of  like  integrity,  there  should  be  reasons  for 


64  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

believing  that  a  considerable  number  of  men,  elected  in  recent 
years  to  assist  in  making  the  laws,  have  cast  votes  at  the 
tmholy  diction  of  money?  While  to  see  justice  and  purity 
dethroned,  and  lavi^s  passed  at  the  dictation  of  money  that 
is  reeking  with  corruption,  should  arouse  and  disgust  all  good 
people,  they  should  not  hold  themselves  blameless  for  allow- 
ing those  to  get  into  places  of  power  who  can  be  induced 
to  accept  the  alluring  money  of  bribers." 

The  Hartford  Courant  in  1895,  in  an  editorial 
entitled  "The  Lost  Amendments,"  referring  to  the 
failure  of  the  senate  to  pass  the  two  constitutional 
ainendments,  said  as  follows : 

"But  the  two  years  have  gone  by  and  the  amendments  have 
been  killed,  although  in  our  opinion  three-quarters  of  the 
people  and  more  than  a  hundred  of  the  towns,  if  not  all  of 
them,  would  if  they  had  the  chance,  adopt  each  amendment 
to-day.  They  expected  the  chance  and  they  will  be  disap- 
pointed and  indignant  at  what  has  been  done. 

The  big  corporations,  which  find  the  control  of  thirteen 
senators  means  the  control  of  all  Connecticut  legislation,  did 
not  want  the  senate  enlarged.  The  proposed  enlargement  has 
been  killed  off. 

The  political  managers,  who  would  have  more  money  to 
handle  if.  they  could  bear  down  on  the  candidates  with  the 
need  of  greasing  each  town  so  as  to  have  the  legislature  right 
in  case  the  state  ticket  failed  of  a  clean  majority,  did  not 
want  the  majority  restriction  removed.     And  it  isn't  removed. 

The  political  managers  who  undertake  to  run  conventions 
sometimes  for  love  or  hate  and  sometimes  for  more  material 
considerations,  want  to  be  able  to  stick  unpopular  men  on  the 
ticket,  if  it  seems  worth  their  while.  With  the  majority 
regulation  this  can  be  done;  with  the  plurality  rule  in  effect 
an  objectionable  candidate  would  have  to  take  the  conse- 
quences and  go  under.  Hence  the  machine  for  this  reason 
also  was  against  the  amendment,  and  the  amendment  is  dead." 

Prof.  McCook,  of  Trinity  College,  in  an  article  in 
the  September  Forum,  1894,  said : 


CIVIC   CORRUPTION.  65 

"Careful  investigation  shows  that  an  average  of  over 
15  per  cent,  of  the  votes  of  Connecticut  electors  can 
be  purchased.'' 

The  following  letter  written  in  1895  to  Prof. 
McCook  by  ex-Governor  Thomas  M.  Waller,  is  to  the 
same  point : 

Office  of  Waller  &  Wagner, 
45  Wall  Street, 
New  York,  Fel).  20,   1895. 
"My  Dear  Sir: 

My  attention  has  been  called  to  your  remarks  yesterday 
before  the  judiciary  committee  in  the  Capitol  in  regard  to 
corrupt  elections  in  Connecticut,  and  also  to  the  allusion  by 
j^ou  and  others  to  my  statement  made  two  years  ago  that 
there  was  spent  in  the  presidential  campaign  of  1892  in  our 
state  more  than  $100,000  by  democrats  and  probably  as  much 
more  by  the  republicans,  and  that  two-thirds,  if  not  more, 
of  those  amounts  were  expended  in  ways,  that  would  not  be 
approved  of  in  a  corrupt  practices  act,  or  approved  of  by  the 
great  body  of  either  of  the  political  parties. 

"I  did  not  make  that  statement  without  deliberation  or  with- 
out knowledge,  and  if  the  General  Assembly  organizes  a  Lexow 
committee,  of  which,  I  think,  we  have  need,  to  investigate 
the  evil  in  question,  I  will  undertake  to  prove  before  that 
tribunal  to  the  satisfaction  of  everybody,  and  out  of  the 
mouths  of  state  and  local  committeemen,  too,  that  the  sums 
I  said  were  expended,  were  altogether  too  small,  and  that 
the  portion  of  such  sums  that  I  said  was  devoted  to  legiti- 
mate purposes  was  altogether  too  large. 

"I  am  satisfied  that  you  did  not  over-state  in  your  Forum 
article,  the  proportion  of  voters  in  our  state  who  are  directly 
or  indirectly  bought  or  corrupted  at  every  important  election. 

"And,  while  I  am  not  a  reformer  or  a  mugwump,  but  only 
a  democrat  and  not  as  good  as  my  party,  either,  I  am  in  full 
sympathy  with  you  and  all  others,  who  are  fighting  against 
the  inordinate  and  dishonest  use  of  money  at  the  polls  in 
Connecticut.  For,  if  this  evil  is  not  checked,  legislators  will 
soon  be  bought  and  sold  as  voters  now  are,  and  men  who 
5 


66  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

want  to  be  governors  and  senators,  and  who  could  not  obtain 
such  positions  otherwise,  will  only  have  to  furnish  the  man- 
agers with  money  enough  to  acquire  all  the  honors  they 
covet. 

"I  have  always  been  opposed  to  the  use  of  money  at  elec- 
tions, as  a  citizen,  if  not  as  a  moralist,  and  I  am  opposed 
to  it  still. 

Yours  very  truly, 

Thomas  ]\I.  Waller." 

It  should  be  observed  here  that  this  letter  evoked 
some  sharp  criticisms  from  the  members  of  the  legisla- 
ture then  in  session,  in  reply  to  which  Gov.  Waller 
publicly  expressed  his  willingness  to  appear  before 
any  committee  that  the  legislature  might  appoint,  and 
substantiate  his  charges  by  proof ;  but  after  due  con- 
sideration, the  legislature  decided  not  to  give  him 
this  opportunity,  and  it  is  the  common  belief  that  it 
did  not  dare  to  summon  him  before  them  to  explain 
or  to  prove  his  charges. 

Replying  to  criticisms  upon  his  letter,  Gov.  Waller 
said,  "It  would,  of  course,  require  a  committee  like 
the  Lexow  Committee  to  bring  these  facts  out,  but 
give  me  such  a  committee  and  I  will  warrant  to  put 
the  committeemen  on  the  stand  who  have  had  charge 
of  the  distribution  of  corruption  money  at  election 
time.  I  will  confront  them  with  their  own  dishonesty, 
and  defy  them  to  disprove  it. 

"Why,  money  rules  Connecticut  politically.  No 
man  can  hope  to  rise  there  unless  he  has  the  backing 
of  the  money  power.  A  rich  man  who  wishes  to  be 
elected  governor  or  senator  calls  the  district  committee- 
men around  him  and  places  his  cash  with  them.  They 
do  the  rest.  No  man  without  money  can  hope  to 
cope  with  the  rich  man's  dollars.  Why,  I  know  of 
one  case  where  the  members  of  a  committee  actually 


CIVIC   CORRUPTION.  67 

sat  in  a  back  room  during  an  election,  and,  as  the 
voters  passed  out,  distributed  $1,500  among  them. 
Republicans  and  democrats  have  been  equally  corrupt. 
But  I  say  it  isn't  right,  and  that  it's  high  time  some- 
thing was  done  to  check  the  crying  evil. 

"Nothing  can  be  accomplished,  however,  until  we 
succeed  in  getting  an  Investigating  Committee  to 
probe  these  abuses,  and  that,  I  fear,  we  shall  never  be 
able  to  bring  about.  In  the  meantime  the  agitation 
carried  on  by  such  men  as  Charles  Dudley  Warner 
and  Prof.  McCook  may  do  much  to  create  a  healthy 
public  sentiment." 

The  Hartford  Conrant  of  February  25,  1895,  com- 
mented upon  this  discussion  in  the  following  editorial : 

A  CHALLENGE  THAT  MUST  BE  MET. 

"Ex-Governor  Tom  Waller  cannot  be  whistled  down  the 
wind  as  an  amateur  politician,  a  theorist,  a  closet  philosopher, 
or  a  'goody-goody  reformer.'  He  has  been  in  Connecticut 
politics  for  many  years — very  deep  in,  too.  His  testimony  is 
the  testimony  of  an  expert. 

He  tells  the  Nezu  York  Herald — we  reprint  in  another 
column  his  exact  language — -that  Connecticut  is  more  corrupt, 
politically,  than  the  city  of  New  York.  He  repeats  that  he 
stands  ready  to  prove  the  truth  of  all  he  has  said  on  the 
subject  out  of  the  mouths  of  state  committeemen — democratic 
and  republican — if  the  General  Assembly  gives  him  the  chance. 
He  doesn't  expect,  at  present,  to  get  the  chance. 

There  ought  not  to  be  the  slightest  hesitation  or  delay 
in  giving  ex-Governor  Tom  Waller  an  opportunity  not  only 
to  tell  what  he  himself  knows,  with  circumstantiality  and 
detail,  but  to  compel  other  men  to  tell  what  they  know.  His 
challenge  to  the  General  Assembly  has  excited  wide  attention. 
If  it  is  ignored  and  evaded,  the  shielders  of  corruption  will 
be  held  to  a  sharp  accounting  at  the  next  elections.  The 
honest  people,  republicans  and  democrats  alike,  are  watching 
this  incident." 


68  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.  ' 

Turning  now  from  the  politicians,  the  press  and  the 
professors,  it  may  be  well  to  consider  what  the  pulpit 
has  said  upon  this  subject. 

Sometime  since  the  general  conference  of  Connecti- 
cut Congregational  churches,  sitting  at  South  Norwalk, 
turned  its  attention  to  the  duties  of  the  christian  citi- 
zen. Dr.  Newman  Smyth,  of  New  Haven,  fresh  from 
his  assault  on  intrenched  official  incompetency  and  cor- 
ruption in  that  town,  read  a  paper  upon  local  govern- 
ment, and  the  conference  gave  him  a  vote  of  thanks  for 
it  on  the  spot.  Other  papers  were  read.  Then  the 
Rev.  R.  T.  Hall  offered  the  following  resolutions : 

"Resolved,  First — We  acknowledge  with  great 
regret  and  shame  the  prevalent  debauchery  in  the 
public  affairs  of  our  commonwealth,  especially  as 
regards  the  enforcement  of  criminal  law,  the  purchase 
of  votes  and  the  corruption  of  legislators. 

Second — We  heartily  commend  the  individual  and 
organized  efforts,  that  have  been  made  to  put  an  end 
to  this  debauchery  in  various  places  of  the  State. 

Third — While  we  recognize  that  our  churches  exist 
primarily  for  distinctly  spiritual  ends,  and  that  the 
regeneration  of  individual  souls  is  the  only  basis  of 
moral  progress,  yet  in  view  of  the  existing  situation 
we  urge  upon  our  pastors  and  people,  in  the  pulpits, 
on  the  streets  and  everywhere,  to  do  their  utmost — 
to  the  sacrifice  of  partizan  feelings  and  interests  if 
need  be — to  secure  honest,  competent  local  government 
for  our  towns  and  for  the  State." 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  these  resolutions  were 
passed  unanimously.  It  is  the  firm  belief  of  many 
that  if  the  clergymen  of  the  State  would  act  in  accord- 
ance with  the  above  resolutions,  and  were  to  sacrifice 


CIVIC   CORRUPTION.  69 

all.partizaii  feelings  and  interests,  and  vote  at  elec- 
tions for  the  candidates,  for  the  party  and  the  plat- 
form, which  seem  most  likely  to  bring  about  the  desired 
change  in  our  laws,  the  politicians  would  respect  and 
fear  them  and  would  comply  with  their  demands. 

A  well  known  effort  in  the  same  direction, — that  is 
toward  the  suppression  of  bribery  at  elections,  was 
successfully  made  in  the  town  of  Ridgefield  in  the 
campaign  of  1892,  when  one  of  the  political  clubs 
offered  a  standing  reward  of  $100  to  any  person,  who 
would  furnish  evidence  sufficient  to  convict  an3'0ne 
of  buying,  or  attempting  to  buy  a  vote  in  said  town. 
This  offer  was  non-partizan  and  free  to  all.  The 
result  was  that  at  that  election,  vote-buying  in  the 
town  of  Ridgefield  entirely  ceased.  Every  man  who 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  indulging  in  this  practice, 
feared  that  anyone  whom  he  should  attempt  to  bribe, 
would  try  to  secure  the  $100  reward  offered  by  expos- 
ing him. 

The  resolutions  adopted  upon  that  occasion  were  as 
follows : 

Whereas,  The  use  of  money  for  purchasing  votes  at  elec- 
tions has  grown  to  frightful  proportions  and  is  undermining 
alike  the  welfare  of  the  nation  and  the  morals  of  its  citizens: 

Whereas,  It  is  stated  by  Prof.  J.  J.  McCook,  of  Trinity 
College,  in  an  article  in  the  September  Forum,  that  careful 
investigation  shows,  that  an  average  of  over  15  per  cent,  of 
the  votes  of  Connecticut  electors  can  be  purchased ; 

Whereas,  We  think  the  only  way  to  check  and  stamp  out 
this  evil  is  to  arouse  a  public  sentiment  against  it,  for  every 
respectable  political  organization  to  declare  against  it,  and  to 
take  energetic  measures  toward  its  suppression,  by  the  detec- 
tion and  conviction  of  the  offenders  under  the  laws  of  the 
state ;    therefore  be  it 


70  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

Resolved,  That  the  Democratic  Campaign  Club  of  Ridge- 
field  denounces  the  use  of  money,  and  all  other  improper  means 
for  the  purpose  of  corrupting  voters  at  elections. 

Resolved,  That  the  Club  pledges  itself  to  use  all  the  means 
within  its  power,  to  prevent  the  use  of  moneys  in  politics  for 
any  other  than  legitimate  campaign  expenses. 

Resolved,  That  this  Club  appoint  a  committee  of  25  persons 
who  shall  be  charged  with  the  duty  of  detecting  and  bringing 
to  punishment,  any  parties  who  shall  in  the  town  of  Ridgefield, 
violate  or  attempt  to  violate  the  law  of  the  state  in  reference 
to  bribery  and  the  marking  of  ballots. 

Resolved,  That  this  Club  offer  a  reward  of  $100,  to  be  paid 
to  any  person  who  shall  furnish  evidence  sufficient  to  convict 
anyone  of  giving  or  taking  a  bribe,  or  of  illegally  marking 
ballots  at  the  election  in  Ridgefield  in  November  next. 

Resolved,  That  $100  be  appropriated  from  the  fimds  of  the 
Club,  and  be  deposited  with  the  Ridgefield  Savings  Bank  for 
this  purpose. 

Resolved,  That  this  Club  does  hereby  call  upon  all  good 
citizens  and  all  political  organizations,  to  join  in  this  new 
crusade  against  bribery  and  in  the  fight  for  the  purity  of  the 
ballot." 

The  following  is  from  the  Hartford  C  our  ant: 

"Windsor  Locks  is  another  town  to  be  listed  with  those  that 
are  bound  to  have  cleaner  politics.  Indeed  it  should  have  been 
mentioned  earlier,  for  the  good  work  began  earlier  there  than 
in  some  of  the  other  towns. 

Two  years  ago  the  Republican  and  Democratic  town  com- 
mittees 'got  together'  and  agreed  to  use  their  influence  to 
prevent  all  buying  of  votes.  Stories  of  corrupt  practice  had 
been  so  numerous,  facts  as  to  the  purchase  of  voters  had 
become  so  obvious,  that  it  was  time  for  a  halt.  And  a  halt 
was  made.     .     .     . 

As  a  result,  the  election  of  1892  and  again  that  of  last 
week  were  carried  through  without  any  vote-buying,  which 
the  regular  party  organizations  were  cognizant  of  or  able  to 
prevent.  The  result  was  that  Windsor  Locks  voted  as  It 
wanted  to,  and  there  were  no  disgraceful  stories  to  echo  about 
the  town  for  months  to  its  own  discredit. 


CIVIC   CORRUPTION.  71 

An  esteemed  correspondent  writes  us  that  the  'Kent  plan' 
was  in  operation  this  year  not  only  in  Kent  itself,  in  North 
Canaan  and  New  Milford,  but  also  in  Canaan,  Salisbury, 
Sharon,  Cornwall  and  Roxbury — in  every  town  of  the  Nine- 
teenth senatorial  district  except  Bridgewater.  With  regard 
to  the  practical  working  of  it,  he  reports : 

'I  can  speak  only  of  Salisbury.  There  was  no  pulling  and 
hauling  of  electors,  but  a  quiet  and  orderly  election.  Each 
party  had  its  detectives  to  watch  for  and  discover  any  viola- 
tion of  the  contract  on  either  side.  So  far  as  I  can  learn 
there  was  no  such  violation,  and  no  complaint  or  fault-finding 
by  the  politicians  of  either  of  the  parties.' 

Now  why — you  may  ask — was  the  'Kent  plan'  adopted  in 
the  Housatonic  Valley?  My  answer  is:  First, — the  leading 
politicians  of  both  parties,  their  business  and  monied  men, 
have  become  disgusted  with  the  bribing  of  electors.  I  hope 
their  consciences  and  love  of  country  have  had  an  influence 
with  them.  Second, — Our  Australian  ballot  law  has  helped 
to  bring  about  the  great  change,  in  my  judgment,  in  this  town. 
The  briber,  under  this  law,  cannot  know  how  the  purchased 
elector,  who  has  been  bought  (generally)  twice,  will  finally 
vote.  The  second  briber  says  to  the  voter.  'You  get  all  the 
money  you  can  from  Mr.  A's  boodle ;  then  come  to  me  before 
you  vote,  and  I  will  take  care  of  you.'  The  ballot  law  per- 
haps needs  revision  and  amendment,  but  I  hope  it  will  never 
be  done  away  with. 

Here  then  are  nine  Connecticut  towns  already  heard  from, 
that  have  set  to  work  in  a  practical  way  and  in  earnest  to  have 
clean,  honest  elections — to  put  down  the  vote-buyers  and  the 
vote-buying.  If  there  are  others  that  have  not  yet  reported. 
The  Courant  will  be  glad  to  hear  from  them." 

The  impropriety  of  the  method  of  election  of  County- 
Commissioners  by  the  legislature  has  already  been  men- 
tioned, and  the  fact  that  it  is  a  prolific  source  of  civic 
corruption  is  well  known.  It  is  an  office  of  great 
importance,  and  much  desired.  They  manage  all  the 
county  business,  controlling  the  county  institutions,  the 


72  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

liquor  traffic,  and  the  expenditure  of  large  sums  of 
money.  Nominally  appointed  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly, but  in  reality  selected  by  a  caucus  of  the  majority 
members  of  the  legislature  for  the  respective  counties, 
they  are  responsible  to  no  one,  and  if  they  prove  cor- 
rupt or  incompetent,  there  is  no  one  upon  whom  the 
blame  of  their  appointment  can  be  fastened. 

Time  and  again  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  enact 
a  law  providing  for  their  election  by  the  people,  but 
it  is  not  for  the  interest  of  political  managers  to  have 
the  people  choose  officials,  when  they  can  be  selected 
by  star  chamber  methods  as  the  result  of  a  deal. 

Vide  appendix,  pp.   126,   127,   134. 

The  system  of  having  the  prosecuting  liquor  agents 
appointed  by  the  County  Commissioners,  is  an  abomina- 
tion and  a  stench  in  the  nostrils  of  all  friends  of  tem- 
perance, and  reform  and  good  government  in  the  State. 
It  simply  helps  to  perfect  the  power  of  the  political 
machine  which  controls  our  county  government,  and 
emphasizes  as  strongly  as  can  be  the  necessity  and 
importance  of  wholly  divorcing  the  liquor  traffic  from 
politics.  No  one  has  the  hardihood  to  assert  that  the 
prosecuting  liquor  agent,  appointed  by  the  County 
Commissioners  and  holding  his  office  at  their  pleasure, 
is  going  to  carry  on  any  prosecution,  however  just, 
against  their  wishes,  or  is  going  to  prosecute  any  law- 
less saloon  keeper  who  has  what  is  technically  called 
a  "pull"  with  the  board.  One  of  the  greatest  sources 
of  political  corruption  in  the  State  to-day,  is  the  vicious 
management  of  the  saloon  element  by  the  County 
Commissioners  and  their  prosecuting  officers.  The 
saloon  vote  is  controlled  and  coerced  by  the  County 
Commissioners,  and  the  evil  will  never  be  remedied 


CIVIC   CORRUPTION.  73 

until,  among  other  things,  prosecuting  agents  for 
infractions  of  the  Hquor  law  are  chosen  in  some  other 
way  and  are  made  responsible  directly  and  only  to 
the  people. 

The  same  elements  in  the  State  which  favor  Con- 
stitutional Reform  have  demanded  the  election  of  the 
County  Commissioners  by  the  people.  In  so  doing 
they  have  arrayed  themselves  on  the  side  of  pure 
politics  and  have  pronounced  against  the  present 
system  of  election  by  the  legislature  which  must 
necessarily  breed  corruption.  A  system  which  gives 
the  County  Commissioners,  after  they  have  been 
appointed,  a  feeling  that  they  are  not  respon- 
sible to  the  people  for  the  proper  performance  of 
their  official  duties,  but  only  to  the  politicians  who 
made  them ;  a  system  which  compels  the  saloon- 
keepers, as  a  class,  to  remain  in  politics,  subject  to  the 
will  of  the  County  Commissioners,  and  does  more  than 
almost  any  other  one  thing  in  the  State,  to  negative  or 
neutralize  the  attempts  of  thoughtful  citizens  who 
favor  proper  restriction  of  the  liquor  business,  and  the 
efforts  of  the  best  class  of  people,  who  wish,  so  far 
as  possible,  to  take  away  from  the  office-holders  of 
the  State  the  opportunity  to  make  corrupt  bargains. 

The  following  is  an  editorial  from  the  Hartford 
Couraiit: 

"The  State  Senate  killed  yesterday  one  of  the  best  measures 
of  the  session,  and  thereby  fulfilled  the  expectations  of  all 
but  the  most  sanguine  observers.  Indeed,  the  senate  cham- 
ber is  recognized  now  as  sort  of  a  state  graveyard.  Yester- 
.  day  the  proposed  selection  of  liquor  prosecuting  agents  by  the 
courts  was  disposed  of  there  by  15  to  7 — more  than  two  to 
one.     It  was  a  measure  born  of  experience  and  advocated  by 


74  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

law  abiding  citizens  all  over  the  state.  The  republican  party 
would  to-day  pass  it  by  20  to  I,  if  not  50  to  i.  Yet  it  was 
killed  to  please  county  commissioners  who  want  to  use  the 
liqvior  interest  for  party  purposes.  Such  a  policy  is  simply 
suicidal  for  the  party  of  law,  order,  and  progress." 

If  the  foregoing  instances  are  not  sufficient  to  sat- 
isfy any  candid  reader,  of  the  truth  of  the  statement 
laid  down  in  the  opening  sentences  of  this  chapter,  they 
can  be  multiphed  ten-fold  by  anyone  who  is  at  all  con- 
versant with  the  history  of  Connecticut  politics.  And 
it  will  be  observed  that  this  civic  corruption  permeates 
the  entire  body  politic,  is  not  confined  to  individuals, 
but  to  the  parties  as  well,  as  was  most  forcibly  shown 
during  the  legislature  of  1895,  by  the  shameful  repudia- 
tion of  the  pledges  made  two  years  before,  by  the 
party  in  power  regarding  the  proposed  constitutional 
amendments.  This  act  of  repudiation  was  so  start- 
ling and  so  new  in  the  history  of  New  England  com- 
munities, that  it  has  become  historic,  and  called  forth 
expressions  of  surprise  and  reproof  from  leading  jour- 
nals all  over  the  country,  one  of  which  said  as  follows : 

"The  worst  thing  about  such  performances  is  that  they 
strike  at  the  very  principle  of  party  government.  The  theory 
of  such  government  is  that  rival  political  organizations  meet 
in  conventions,  adopt  platforms  which  commit  them  to  the 
carrying  out  of  certain  policies,  and  nominate  candidates  who 
are  bound  to  sustain  these  policies.  The  republicans  of 
Connecticut  promised  the  voters  that,  if  they  would  give  them 
control  of  the  legislature  again,  they  would  ratify  these  pend- 
ing amendments  for  the  introduction  of  the  plurality  princi- 
ple and  the  reform  of  the  senate.  They  urged  that  this  was  a 
better  way  of  curing  admitted  defects  in  the  constitution,  than 
the  plan  favored  by  many  democrats  of  calling  a  convention' 
and  revising  the  whole  constitution.  The  party  virtually 
entered    into    a    contract    with   the    voters    to    advance    these 


CIVIC  CORRUPTION.  75 

amendments,  if  the  voters  would  intrust  them  with  the  legisla- 
ture. Having  secured  control  on  distinct  pledges  regarding 
these  measures,  the  party  repudiates  its  promises." 

The  safety  of  a  republican  form  of  government 
depends  largely  upon  the  existence  of  parties,  and  in 
order  to  protect  the  people  and  to  give  expression  to 
their  will,  the  constitution  should  provide  that  when- 
ever either  party  obtains  a  plurality  of  the  votes,  it 
should  be  invested  with  the  powers  of  government, 
and  the  full  responsibility  for  exercising  the  same. 
In  this  way  citizens  who  desire  nothing  but  good 
government  are  able  to  express  their  wishes,  to  vote 
for  the  better  candidate  and  the  better  principles, 
feeling  assured  that  their  votes  will  be  effective,  and, 
furthermore,  in  this  way  the  managers  of  both  parties 
are  compelled  often  to  advocate  principles  of  reform, 
for  which  they  have  no  sympathy,  and  to  place  before 
the  people  candidates  of  high  character,  for  whom  they 
have  no  great  liking,  simply  in  order  to  win  the  day. 

As  has  been  truly  said.  There  is  an  irresistible  and 
eternal  tendency  in  all  kinds  of  power,  to  over-step  its 
proper  boundaries  and  work  for  evil,  unless  restrained 
by  some  sort  of  checks  or  balances.  This  is  human 
nature  and  is  party  nature  as  well.  Any  party  that 
has  a  continued  lease  of  power  for  a  number  of  years 
is  bound  to  deteriorate  and  become  corrupt,  and  the 
only  safeguard  against  this  tendency  is  found,  when 
there  is  an  opposing  party  nearly  equal  in  strength, 
ready  to  criticise  all  shortcomings,  ready  to  promise 
and  carry  out  improvements  if  given  an  opportunity, 
and  when  the  independent  thinking,  incorruptible,  non- 
partizan  voters  of  the   State   feel   conscious  of  their 


76  THE    COXXECTICUT    COXSTITUTIOX. 

power  at  every  election  to  throw  the  victory  either 
way. 

Pledges  by  a  political  party  in  favor  of  any  reform, 
made  in  order  to  obtain  votes  and  in  fear  of 
adverse  action  by  the  people  at  the  election,  con- 
stitute a  moral  obligation  that  appeals  to  the  sense 
of  every  honorable  man,  and  although  such  pledges  are 
not  technically  and  legally  binding  upon  the  members 
of  the  party  when  elected  upon  them,  and  acting 
as  legislators,  they  are  for  that  very  reason  all  the  more 
binding  as  a  moral  obligation.  ]\Ien  who  obtain  votes 
\\hich  place  them  in  office,  which  are  given  on  account 
of  certain  pledges  that  have  been  made,  without  dis- 
tinctly and  plainly  stating  their  opposition  to  such 
pledges,  are  guilty  of  sharp  practice  if  they  do  not 
make  their  actions  conform  to  the  spirit  of  such  anti- 
election  promises. 

A  party  which  pursues  such  a  course,  which  pursues 
the  course  that  was  followed  in  regard  to  these  consti- 
tutional amendments,  is  uncjuestionably  guilty  of  a 
violation  of  a  moral  obligation,  and  deserves  to  be 
put  in  the  same  category  as  men  who  take  advan- 
tage of  a  technical  objection  to  defeat  an  honest  claim, 
as  men  who  cheat  at  cards  or  use  foul  means  to  win 
a  horse  race.  Repudiation  whether  of  financial  obliga- 
tion or  of  political  promises,  is  equally  dishonorable, 
and  this  whole  dishonorable  episode  in  the  history  of 
the  State,  only  goes  to  furnish  another  example  of  the 
lamentable  fact  that  there  are  many  men  in  this  com- 
munity who  are  willing  to  stoop  to,  connive  at,  and 
take  advantage  of  questionable  devices  in  politics, 
which  they  would  scorn  to  use  in  their  personal,  busi- 
ness, or  social  relations. 


CIVIC   CORRUPTION.  77 

As  a  result,  the  moral  tone  of  the  entire  State  in 
matters  civic  and  political  has  become  demoralized; 
vote  buying  and  vote  selling,  the  purchase  of  nomina- 
tions for  cash,  repudiation  of  party  pledges  and  the 
influencing  of  legislation  by  the  use  of  money  are 
openly  discussed  and  but  faintly  denied.  Most  notable 
has  been  the  effect  upon  the  lobby,  which  in  a  certain 
way  is  as  distinguished  as  that  of  any  other  State. 

Space  permits  no  more  than  a  passing  allusion  to 
this  form  of  civic  corruption,  and  a  single  extract, 
slightly  altered,  in  order  to  eliminate  personal  allu- 
sions, from  a  brilliant  account  of  a  well  remembered 
legislative  conflict  in  which  the  third  house  was  the 
most  prominent,  will  suffice  to  show  the  character  of 
this  distinction. 

High  old  times  were  those  in  the  State  Capitol  when 
the  lobby  was  as  an  army  with  banners — and  plenty  of 
pay  chests — when  many  a  legislator  went  home  with 
a  light  heart  and  a  lighter  mortgage,  when  the  item  of 
"legal  expenses"  of  the  rival  corporations  waxed  like 
Jonah's  gourd,  and  our  good  Ship  of  State  for  about 
three  weeks  floated,  in  free  champagne.  Many  a 
unique  character  in  legislative  ethics  then  appeared, 
but  none  more  so  than  the  legislator,  whose  miasmatic 
conscience  prompted  him  to  return  to  the  one  party 
the  purchase  money  for  his  vote  after  accepting  a 
bigger  sum  from  the  other. 

In  his  recent  work  entitled  "Democracy  and 
Liberty,"  William  Edward  Hartpole  Lecky  points  to 
the  United  States  as  illustrating  his  general  proposi- 
tion that  the  tendency  of  democracy  is  toward  mis- 
government,  a  proposition  from  which,  as  intimated  in 
the  preceding  pages,  we  must  emphatically  dissent. 


78  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.  ' 

But  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  he  tells  some  very 
unpalatable  truths,  the  following  one  of  which  has 
direct  application  to  the  subject  of  this  chapter: 

"There  is  one  thing  which  is  worse  than  corruption.  It 
is  the  acquiescence  in  corruption.  No  feature  of  Ameri- 
can life  strikes  a  stranger  so  powerfully  as  the  extraor- 
dinary indifference,  partly  cynicism  and  partly  good  nature, 
with  which  notorious  frauds  and  notorious  corruption  in  the 
sphere  of  politics  are  viewed  by  American  public  opinion. 
There  is  nothing,  I  think,  altogether  like  this  to  be  found 
in  any  other  great  country.  It  is  something  wholly  different 
from  the  political  torpor  which  is  common  in  half-developed 
nations  and  corrupt  despotisms,  and  it  is  curiously  vmlike  the 
state  of  feeling  which  exists  in  the  French  Republic." 

The  question  naturally  arises  after  considering  these 
facts :  what  is  the  reason  ? — why  should  this  state  of 
things  exist  in  any  enlightened  community,  and  espe- 
cially in  Connecticut,  which  started  ofif  so  proudly  more 
than  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago,  and  became  the 
leader  in  all  that  pertains  to  good  government? 

The  answer  is  patent  and  has  undoubtedly  occurred 
to  every  reader. 

It  is  this  antiquated  constitution  that  has  brought 
shame  upon  the  fair  and  proud  name  of  Connecticut. 
It  is  the  refusal  of  the  representatives  of  the  people 
to  revise  these  provisions  of  the  fundamental  law  of 
i8i8,  which  were  right  and  just  and  suited  to  the  time 
and  conditions  then  existing,  that  has  perpetuated  that 
shame. 

By  the  changed  condition  of  population  in  the  last 
seventy-five  years,  resulting  in  the  unequal  representa- 
tion above  alluded  to,  it  has  come  to  pass  that  the  use 
of  money  in  elections,  among  the  few  voters  in  certain 


CIVIC   CORRUPTION.  79 

small  towns  having  as  many  representatives  as  the 
largest  cities,  can  effect  unusual  results ;  can,  through 
securing  delegates  from  these  towns,  control  a  conven- 
tion and  force  undesirable  nominations  upon  the 
majority  of  a  party;  can,  by  securing  the  election  of 
representatives  from  those  towns,  overthrow  a  plurality 
of  votes  for  governor  and  state  officers,  and  insure 
the  election  of  United  States  senators,  of  a  different 
political  faith  from  that  of  a  majority  of  the  people 
of  the  State. 

In  no  other  State  in  the  Union,  excepting  perhaps 
Nevada,  would  this  be  possible,  for  in  all  of  them 
equal  representation  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  pre- 
vails. These  offices  are  great  prizes ;  they  are  great 
temptations  to  the  politicians,  and,  knowing  human 
nature  as  we  do,  none  should  wonder  at  the  result. 
Take  away  this  temptation  from  the  people  of  the 
State,  and  so  far  as  possible  make  the  use  of  money 
worthless  in  elections.  Take  away  this  incentive  for 
politicians  to  oft'er  large  sums  for  single  votes. 

How  can  we  blame  the  poor,  ignorant,  corrupt  voter 
for  taking  $5,  $10  or  $25  for  his  vote,  when  he  knows 
that  money  was  contributed  by  the  well-to-do,  edu- 
cated and  professedly  moral  members  of  the  com- 
munity, knowing  that  it  probably  would  be  used  cor- 
ruptly? How  can  we  expect  him  to  refuse  it  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  not  right,  when  he  sees  men  of 
standing  and  property  justifying  or  winking  at  unfair 
constitutional  provisions,  such  as  majority  elections  or 
unequal  representation,  that  he  knows  are  not  right, 
that  they  know  are  not  right,  and  we  all  know  are 
unjust  and  inequitable?     He  sells  his  vote;   they  sell 


8o  THE    CON^'ECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.    ' 

their  independence  of  thought  and  action  by  faihng  to 
protest  and  vote  against  such  injustice. 

A  large  portion  of  the  responsibihty  for  this  corrupt 
state  of  affairs  in  Connecticut,  rests  upon  the  shoulders 
of  the  respectable  class,  the  leaders  of  opinion,  who 
refuse  to  recognize  the  fact  that  the  constitution,  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  State,  is  unequal,  unjust, 
crooked  and  out  of  joint,  and  that  we  cannot  expect 
good -results  to  follow  from  the  laws  that  are  made  in 
accordance  with  it,  or  from  the  people  who  live  under 
it.  The  constitution  of  1818  was  glorious  when  it  was 
born ;  it  is  now  ofttimes  the  cause  of  shame  to  the 
State.  It  is  largely  because  of  that  constitution,  that 
the  evils  resulted  which  were  depicted  two  years  ago, 
by  Professor  McCook,  when  he  made  the  startling 
statement  that  fifteen  per  cent,  of  the  vote  of  Con- 
necticut was  venal. 

It  is  chiefly  because  of  the  defects  of  the  constitu- 
tion, that  the  condition  of  affairs  has  arisen,  suggested 
by  an  ex-Governor  of  the  State  in  his  recent  declara- 
tion, that  Connecticut  is  more  corrupt  politically  than 
New  York  City,  the  ratio  being  as  five  to  one,  and  that 
over  $100,000  was  spent  by  one  party  in  1892  and  a 
large  amount  by  the  other  party. 

The  Hartford  Conrant  in  one  of  its  issues  heads  a 
column  with  the  words,  "Connecticut's  Shame,"  refer- 
ring to  these  charges  of  political  corruption.  Leslie's 
Weekly  states  editorially, — 'Tt  has  been  repeatedly 
declared,  and  has  become  a  matter  of  almost  general 
belief,  that  the  Connecticut  electorate  is  one  of  the 
most  corrupt  in  the  Union,  the  estimate  of  its  purchasa- 
ble vote  reaching  as  high  a  figure  as  20,000." 


CIVIC   CORRUPTION.  8i 

A  gentleman  while  visiting  in  San  Francisco  a 
short  time  ago  became  engaged  in  conversation  with 
a  stranger,  and  upon  being  asked  where  he  resided, 
said  in  Connecticut,  whereupon  his  companion  said : 
"Out  here  Connecticut  is  called  the  Nevada  of  New 
England — the  rottenborough  State."  Is  this  a  libel 
or  is  it  justified  by  the  facts? 

Connecticut's  shame  has  been  bruited  abroad  and 
made  public  property  by  those  who  occupy  positions 
of  authority  and  knowledge,  and  in  referring  to  these 
charges,  though  unable  to  deny  their  substantial  truth, 
it  is  a  duty  and  a  pleasure  to  recall  the  glory  of  her 
record  for  three  centuries,  and  to  call  upon  her  people 
and  her  legislators,  to  remove  speedily  this  prime  cause 
of  her  civic  shame. 


CHAPTER   X 

INJUSTICE  TO   CITIES 

THE  evils  flowing  from  the  constitution,  which 
have  been  discussed  in  the  preceding  chapters, 
are  general  in  their  application,  affecting  the  State  at 
large  and  every  one  of  its  inhabitants.  We  shall  now 
proceed  to  point  out  briefly,  how  the  unfair  provisions 
of  the  constitution  work  injustice  to  special  communi- 
ties, to  classes  in  the  State,  discriminating  against 
some  in  favor  of  others. 

The  injustice  to  the  cities  of  the  State,  and  thereby 
to  those  residing  in  the  cities,  is  very  marked,  and 
as  in  the  other  defects  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
pages,  was  not  intended  by  the  framers  of  the  con- 
stitution, and  did  not  arise  until  a  generation  after 
its  adoption,  but  has  been  caused  by  the  changed  con- 
ditions of  the  people,  whereby  the  cities  have  increased 
very  largely  in  number,  population  and  size,  and  in 
many  instances  the  towns  have  been,  and  still  arc, 
decreasing  in  population. 

The  following  table,  taken  from  the  United  States 
census  for  this  century,  shows  this  more  clearly: 

In  the  In  the  Per  cent. 

State  Cities  in  Cities 

1800 251,002  24,131  9-6 

181O 261,942  25,118  9.6 

1820 275,148  28,671  10.4 

1830 297,675  36,894  12.4 

1840 309.978  51.721  16.7 

1850 370,792  75756  20.4 

i860 460,147  124,579  27.1 

1870 537,454     190,973     35-5 

1880  622,700     244,558     39-3 

1890 746,258     394,676     52.9 


INJUSTICE  TO   CITIES.  83 

There  are  now  17  cities  in  the  State,  and  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  consisting  of  252  members, 
these  cities  have  but  34  members.  With  a  popula- 
tion of  394,676,  they  have  34  members,  while  the 
towns  representing  the  rest  of  the  State,  having  a 
population  of  351,582,  have  218  members.  Otherwise 
stated,  the  cities  with  52.9  per  cent,  of  the  entire 
population  of  the  State,  have  but  13.5  per  cent,  of  that 
unrepresentative  body. 

To  illustrate  still  further  and  in  detail,  the  town  of 
Union  with  a  population  of  431  has  two  representa- 
tives, and  the  City  of  New  Haven  with  a  population 
of  81,298  has  two  representatives, — that  is,  in  the 
former  town  every  215  inhabitants,  are  given  a  repre- 
sentative in  the  legislature,  whereas  in  the  city  it  takes 
40,649  people  to  become  entitled  to  the  same  right. 
In  other  words,  the  vote  of  every  man  in  the  town  of 
Union  has  200  times  as  much  power,  in  elections  of 
representatives,  as  any  man  in  the  City  of  New  Haven, 
and  yet  Article  I  of  the  constitution  of  1818  states  as 
follows : 

"Declaration  of  Rights:  That  the  great  and 
essential  principles  of  liberty  and  free  government  may 
be  recognized  and  established,  we  declare, 

"Section  i.  That  all  men  when  they  form  a  social 
compact,  are  equal  in  rights ;  and  that  no  man  or  set 
of  men  are  entitled  to  exclusive  public  emoluments  or 
privileges  from  the  community." 

In  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  is  the 
basis  of  our  national  government,  and  the  forerunner 
of  the  federal  constitution,  and  which  was  the  unani- 
mous declaration  of  the  thirteen  united  States  of 
America,  it  is  declared:    "That  all  men  are  created 


84  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION^ 

equal,  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with 
certain  unahenable  rights." 

Does  anyone  imagine  for  a  moment  that  the  four 
signers  of  that  declaration,  who  represented  Connecti- 
cut so  ably  and  so  well,  contemplated  that  the  above 
sentence,  would  ever  be  construed  to  accord  with  the 
fact,  that  431  people  in  the  town  of  Union  are  poli- 
tically equal  as  regards  their  right  to  elect  representa- 
tives to  the  81,298  people  in  the  city  of  New  Haven? 
Can  anyone  deny  that  such  a  system  of  misrepresenta- 
tion, is  a  gross  discrimination  against  the  political 
rights  of  the  voters  of  the  cities  of  the  State,  and  in 
contravention  of  the  clause  in  the  State  constitution 
declaring  that  all  men  in  Connecticut  are  "equal  in 
rights." 

We  talk  in  this  country  about  the  great  achievement 
of  emancipating  the  slaves,  and  making  them  the  politi- 
cal equals  of  their  fellow  men,  as  though  political 
equality  existed  everywhere  else.  Connecticut  should 
first  emancipate  the  residents  of  her  cities  and  make 
their  individual  votes  equal  to  the  vote  of  any  man  in 
the  State.  Let  her  make  the  vote  of  every  man  in  the 
city  of  New  Haven,  equal  to  the  vote  of  every  man 
in  the  town  of  Union,  although  some  of  them  do  not 
deserve  it  as  much  as  the  negro  did,  because  the  negro 
desired  political  freedom  and  equality,  and  was  willing 
to  fight  for  it,  whereas  many  of  the  voters  of  the  cities 
of  this  State,  at  the  behest  of  certain  party  leaders,  and 
in  order  to  retain  an  unfair  partizan  advantage,  appear 
to  be  willing  to  acquiesce  in  this  denial  of  their  politi- 
cal rights,  and  will  not  raise  a  finger  or  cast  a  vote  to 
better  their  condition. 


INJUSTICE  TO   CITIES.  85 

What  is  true  of  New  Haven,  is  true,  in  a  different 
degree,  of  every  city  in  the  State,  and  the  question  is, 
how  much  longer  will  the  enterprising  citizens  of 
Connecticut,  consent  to  be  governed  by  a  constitution, 
that  gives  them  virtually  no  representation  in  the 
legislature? 

There  are  thirteen  cities  in  the  State  ^having  over 
10,000  inhabitants;  each  has  two  representatives  in 
the  legislature,  a  total  of  26.  The  population  of  these 
13  cities  aggregates  381,000;  the  rest  of  the  State 
has  a  population  of  365,000,  so  the  exact  statement 
of  the  actual  condition  is,  that  381,000  people  have 
26  representatives,  and  365,000  people  have  225 
representatives ;  over  one-half  of  the  people  of  the 
State,  can  elect  only  10  per  cent,  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  which  consists  of  252  members. 
A  mere  statement  of  the  case  is  sufficient  to  show  its 
injustice  and  absurdity,  and  to  satisfy  any  fair  mind 
that  the  system  should  be  changed,  not  by  taking  away 
the  representation  that  the  small  towns  now  enjoy, 
but  by  increasing  the  representation  of  the  cities  and 
large  towns  in  proportion  to  their  population. 

The  denial  of  the  right  of  home  rule  to  Ireland,  is 
not  so  flagrant  as  the  denial  of  the  same  right  to  the 
cities  of  Connecticut,  all  of  whose  internal  municipal 
affairs  can  be  regulated  and  controlled  to  the  minutest 
detail,  by  the  representatives  of  towns  having  no  real 
interest  in  their  government  and  welfare,  taxation  and 
progress. 

Ireland  with  a  population  of  4,706,448  out  of  a  total 
population  of  37,888,439  in  the  United  Kingdom,  is 
given  a  representation  of  103  members  in  the  House 
of  Commons  in  a  total  number  of  670  members. 


86  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

It  is  a  feeble  and  unworth}-  argument,  to  maintain 
that  this  present  discrimination  against  the  cities 
should  be  approved  and  continued,  for  the  reason  that 
the  large  cities  are  more  corrupt  politically  than  the 
rural  districts,  and  that  it  is  better  for  the  State  at 
large,  to  have  their  rightful  degree  of  power  curtailed 
in  the  interest  of  good  government. 

Human  nature  is  the  same  the  world  over,  and 
possibly  both  extremes  are  more  to  be  found  in  the 
large  cities,  but  we  cannot  believe  that  the  average  of 
political  morality,  is  lower  in  the  cities  of  Connecticut 
than  in  the  rest  of  the  State.  In  any  event,  it  is 
perpetrating  a  definite  injustice  that  possible  good  may 
come,  which  is  always  wrong. 

This  bugbear  can  be  avoided,  however,  by  those  who 
sincerely  believe  in  the  superior  virtue  of  the  towns 
over  the  cities,  by  the  system  of  district  representation, 
whereby  the  representation  is  allotted  to  the  different 
wards  instead  of  to  the  city  at  large,  thus  dividing  the 
vote,  and  no  one  has  the  hardihood  to  claim  that  there 
is  not,  in  certain  sections  of  all  the  cities,  a  majority 
who  are  in  favor  of  clean  politics  and  good  govern- 
ment. 

Here  is  an  answer  to  this  objection,  given  by  the 
Hartford  Courant  in  an  editorial  upon  this  subject, 
in  which  views  the  friends  of  just  and  equal  repre- 
sentation to  the  cities  heartily  concur; 

"It  is  said  that  any  alteration  of  the  present  'rotten  bor- 
ough' system  would  fling  the  control  of  the  state  into  the 
hands  of  the  large  cities.  The  influence  of  corporations 
upon  this  subject,  whether  large  or  small,  is  to  be  deprecated, 
but  it  might  easily  be  obviated  by  the  course  now  pursued  in 
the  state  of  New  York,  which  is  the  single  district  system, 


INJUSTICE  TO   CITIES.  87 

the  most  equal,  just  and  republican  mode  that  can  be  invented; 
for  then  no  clique  of  politicians  bonded  together  for  their 
own  selfish  purposes,  or  no  body  of  voters  who  have  any 
particular  object  to  attain,  can  influence  an  election  of  more 
than  one  member. 

With  single  districts,  containing  as  nearly  as  may  be  an 
equal  number  of  inhabitants,  or  of  voters,  there  can  be  no 
complaint  of  inequality  or  injustice." 

At  present  in  many  cities  of  the  State,  the  will  of  the 
majority  regarding  matters  of  strictly  local  concern, 
such  as  taxation,  the  constitution  of  municipal  boards, 
the  question  of  bi-partizan  control,  the  organization  of 
city  courts,  and  many  other  charter  provisions,  is  dis- 
tinctly ignored  and  thwarted  by  the  action  of  legisla- 
tors from  towns  who  have  no  local  interest  in  the  cities 
whatever,  and  in  too  many  cases  simply  obey  the 
behests  of  party  politicians. 

As  a  natural  result,  the  system  which  prevails  in 
many  of  the  cities  of  the  State  is  inconsistent,  cumber- 
some, expensive  and  absurd,  as  well  as  contrary  to  the 
wish  of  the  majority.  A  single  illustration  of  this 
will  suffice,  in  a  quotation  from  a  statement  made  by 
Mayor  Kilduff,  of  Waterbury : 

"There  are  many  old-fashioned  notions  of  government  in 
Connecticut  cities.  For  instance,  they  have  in  Waterbury 
three  separate  and  distinct  governments,  a  city,  a  town  and 
a  school ;  one  has  charge  of  the  city  affairs,  so  called,  the 
city  having  been  incorporated  to  include  nearly,  though  not 
all,  of  the  township,  while  the  township  incorporation  includes 
it  all  just  as  it  did  before  the  city  was  incorporated.  The 
school  incorporation  is  a  separate  thing,  so  here  we  have 
three  complete  sets  of  officers,  each  handling  the  money  of 
the  same  people,  and  each  looking  after  the  interests  of 
the  same  property  to  a  certain  extent.  It  often  happens  that 
the  separate  boards  of  officers  do  not  work  harmoniously,  and 


88  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

I  have  known  the  officers  of  one  corporation  to  go  to  law 
against  another.  In  this  case  each  corporation  was  spending 
the  money  of  the  same  people,  raised  by  taxing  the  same 
property  to  pay  attorneys'  fees.  The  spectacle  is  absurd  and 
expensive. 

I  have  seen  a  still  more  ridiculous  thing.  Each  corporation 
has  its  own  officers  and  keeps  its  own  accounts.  I  have  known 
two  of  the  corporations  to  have  a  bank  account  to  their  credit 
of  $50,000  each,  while  the  third  had  none,  and  when  the  third 
wanted  money,  it  had  to  go  to  outside  parties  and  borrow, 
paying  six  per  cent,  interest,  while  there  was  on  deposit  for 
the  same  people  and  the  same  interests  more  than  was  needed. 
The  spectacle  was  like  that  of  a  man  with  more  money  than 
he  needed  in  two  pockets  going  to  a  bank  to  borrow  because 
he  chanced  to  have  none  in  the  third  pocket." 

Many  other  illustrations  of  a  like  nature  could  be 
cited,  but  sufficient  has  been  said  to  show  that  the 
treatment  of  the  cities  under  the  present  laws,  is  not 
only  unconstitutional  and  at  variance  with  the  spirit  of 
the  founders  of  the  government,  but  that  it  is  clearly 
wrong  and  unjust,  a  denial  of  the  cardinal  principles 
of  home  rule  and  a  scandal  to  the  State. 


CHAPTER    XI 

INJUSTICE  TO  TOWNS 

IN  all  the  discussion  that  has  taken  place,  during 
the  many  years  that  the  question  of  unfair  rep- 
resentation has  been  prominently  before  the  people,  the 
general  impression  seems  to  have  been,  that  it  was 
solely  a  case  of  discrimination  under  the  constitution, 
against  the  cities  and  in  favor  of  the  towns.  But  that 
this  is  not  the  fact,  and  that  many  of  the  towns  suiifer 
with  the  cities  from  this  injustice,  clearly  appears  upon 
investigation.  In  1873,  when  the  legislature  considered 
the  bill  introduced  by  ex-Governor  Harrison,  provid- 
ing for  a  constitutional  convention,  the  vote  against  it 
was  cast  largely  by  the  representatives  from  the  smaller 
towns,  it  not  then  being  regarded  as  a  party  question, 
and  the  opinion  was  held  by  many  opposed  to  the  bill, 
that  it  might  work  injuriously  to  the  interests  of  the 
towns  and  benefit  only  the  cities. 

The  fact  is  that  under  the  present  system,  with  the 
great  changes  of  population  since  it  was  adopted,  some 
of  the  most  striking  examples  of  its  injustice  are 
furnished  by  certain  towns  of  the  State,  whose  popula- 
tion is  a  trifle  under  5,000  and  which  are  entitled  to 
but  one  representative,  while  there  are  fifty-three 
towns  in  the  state  with  less  population  and  with  far 
less  taxable  property,  which  are  permitted  to  send 
two  representatives  to  the  General  Assembly.  This 
is  the  case  with  the  towns  of  Orange  and  Portland. 
Take  for  instance  the  town  of  Ridgefield,  which  has  a 
population    of    2,235,    and    the    right    to    elect    two 


9°  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

representatives.  Adjoining  it  on  the  south  is  the 
town  of  New  Canaan,  with  a  greater  population, 
which  is  entitled  to  only  one  representative. 

There  are  ten  towns  in  the  state  having  less  than 
1,000  population  each,  which  send  two  representatives 
to  the  legislature,  and  there  are  ten  towns  having  more 
than  3,000  population  each,  which  are  restricted  to  one 
representative  only.  There  are  two  towns  in  the 
state  which,  according  to  the  census,  have  the 
same  population,  ^larlborough  and  Killingworth. 
Each  is  credited  with  582  inhabitants.  Marlborough 
sends  one  representative  and  Killingworth  sends  two. 
Let  the  voters  of  ^Marlborough  reflect  a  little  while 
upon  this  state  of  aftairs ;  let  them  try  to  justify  to 
themselves,  the  fact  that  they  are  given  only  one-half 
the  representation,  that  is  given  to  the  voters  of  Kil- 
lingworth ;  let  them  try  to  justify  this  discrimination, 
and  one  and  all  they  will  tell  you  that  it  cannot  be 
done.  And  yet  this  is  just  what  they  are  doing  when, 
as  representatives  of  one  of  the  smallest  towns,  they 
vote  against  a  proposition  to  equalize  town  representa- 
tion in  accordance  with  population.  If  such  a  plan 
were  adopted,  it  would  in  no  wise  affect  their  repre- 
sentation, because  no  one  has  ever  advocated  depriving 
even  the  smallest  towns,  of  one  representative  in  the 
legislature,  and  the  only  result  so  far  as  they  are  con- 
cerned would  be  to  reduce  the  towns  smaller  than  they, 
to  the  same  representation. 

Take  also  for  example  the  town  of  Hartland  with 
565  inhabitants  and  two  representatives,  and  compare 
it  with  the  town  of  Aliddlebury  having  566  inhabitants 
and  one  representative.  Let  the  voters  of  Middlebury 
endeavor  to  satisfy  themselves  of  the  justice  of  this 


INJUSTICE    TO    TOWNS.  91 

system.  Compare  the  status  of  two  of  the  smallest 
towns  in  the  state,  the  town  of  Andover,  with  401 
people  and  one  representative,  and  the  town  of  Union 
with  431  people  and  two  representatives,  and  if  the 
facts  are  all  properly  understood  by  the  people  of 
Andover,  they  will  without  doubt  favor  a  constitu- 
tional convention,  and  a  readjustment  of  representation 
upon  the  lines  of  equity  and  fairness.  And  we  do  not 
doubt  that  in  the  small  towns  which  have  two  repre- 
sentatives, the  fair-minded,  honest-thinking  people  of 
these  towns,  are  ready  to  concede  the  justice  of  the 
claim,  that  so  long  as  every  town  in  the  State  is  pro- 
tected in  its  right  to  representation  in  the  General 
Assembly,  the  amount  of  that  representation  should  be 
regulated  by  its  present  population,  and  not  by  the 
population  and  conditions  of  eighty-two  years  ago. 

Consider  again  the  town  of  Union  with  its  431 
inhabitants  and  its  two  representatives.  There  are  in 
the  State  eighty-four  towns  which  are  entitled  to  send 
only  one  representative  to  the  legislature,  every  one  of 
which,  with  but  a  single  exception,  has  a  larger  popula- 
tion than  the  town  of  Union ;  and  there  are  many  other 
small  towns  sending  two  representatives,  while  towns 
of  greater  population  and  greater  wealth  and  a  larger 
territory,  are  allowed  to  send  only  one.  What  possible 
explanation  or  reason  can  be  given,  what  would  justify 
such  a  condition  of  things  in  a  state  that  pretends  to  a 
government  of  the  people  by  the  people  and  for  the 
people  ? 

It  has  been  carelessly  assumed  heretofore,  by  many 
of  the  speakers  and  writers  upon  this  subject  and  by 
a  part  of  the  press  of  the  state,  that  any  attempt 
at   a   readjustment   of   representation,   was   an   attack 


92  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

upon  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  smaller  towns, 
and  wholly  redounded  to  the  benefit  of  the  cities 
of  the  state.  But  it  will  be  seen  by  these  figures  that 
the  towns  are  more  deeply  interested  in  having  justice 
done  in  this  matter  than  are  the  cities.  Of  the 
eighty-four  towns  which  are  entitled  to  send  but  one 
representative,  it  is  evident  that  all  are  unjustly  dis- 
criminated against,  excepting  the  town  of  Andover, 
for  so  long  as  the  town  of  Union,  the  next  smallest 
town  in  the  State,  has  two  representatives,  injustice 
is  done  to  every  one  of  the  other  towns  having  a 
larger  population  and  one  representative :  so  as  a 
matter  of  fact  eighty-three  of  the  towns  are  unfairly 
treated  as  well  as  the  larger  cities.  It  is  true  that  the 
degree  of  injustice  appears  greater  in  the  case  of  the 
latter,  but  it  is  only  a  question  of  a  degree,  for  the 
principle  remains  the  same. 

As  showing  that  this  is  not  a  party  question,  we 
refer  in  the  appendix,  pp.  ii6  and  120,  to  two  editorials 
upon  this  subject  in  the  New  Haven  PaUadium,  one  of 
the  leading  republican  papers  of  the  state,  and  quote 
here  a  few  lines  from  one  of  them : 

"Assuming  that  the  town  system  of  representation  is  a  vital 
part  of  our  system  of  government,  about  the  certain  destruc- 
tion of  which,  by  a  constitutional  convention,  the  Courant 
exhibits  a  great  deal  of  needless  worry,  we  ask  our  esteemed 
contemporary  once  more  to  tell  us  why  towns  like  Union  and 
Killingworth  and  Hartland,  with  a  total  of  some  1,500  inhabi- 
tants, should  continue  to  send  six  representatives  to  the 
legislature,  while  towns  like  Orange,  Branford  and  Seymour, 
with  more  than  12,000,  send  only  three.  Surely  this  is  unjust 
and  the  people  see  that  it  is.  If  such  injustice  is  maintained 
by  the  republican  party,  then  the  people  will  vote  against 
us.  No  party  can  thrive  on  injustice,  least  of  all  our  party, 
born  of  the  people." 


INJUSTICE    TO    TOWNS.  93 

Reference  is  also  made  to  a  table  showing  the  popu- 
lation of  all  the  towns  and  cities  in  the  State,  arranged 
in  order  from  the  smallest  to  the  largest,  and  the  repre- 
sentation allotted  to  each.     Appendix,  p.   136. 

It  should  be  clearly  borne  in  mind,  that  the  admis- 
sion that  the  present  system  of  representation  works 
great  injustice  to  certain  towns,  is  by  no  means  inimical 
to  the  idea  of  town  representation  or  of  township 
government.  The  true  friends  of  that  principle  are 
only  desirous  that  the  system  based  upon  it,  shall  be 
based  upon  reason  and  justice  in  order  that  it  may 
not  be  discredited,  and  that  an  outraged  community 
may  not  at  some  future  time,  smarting  under  the  injus- 
tice of  the  present  system,  arise  in  its  might  and  abolish 
it  altogether. 

We  believe  that  the  towns  should  preserve  their 
autonomy.  We  believe  that  each  town  is  entitled  to 
individual  and  separate  representation  in  the  legisla- 
ture. We  believe  that  the  towns  should  be  protected 
in  all  their  rights,  and  also  that  the  people  should  have 
all  their  rights.  We  believe  in  popular  government 
which  is  synonymous  with  fair  representation,  and  we 
believe  that  the  honest-thinking  citizens  of  the  smaller 
towns  believe  the  same. 

The  claim  that  the  town  is  the  political  unit,  self- 
existent  and  self-governed,  has  been  made,  but  its 
absurdity  is  shown  when  carried  out  to  a  logical  con- 
clusion, and  as  a  theory  it  is  discredited  both  in  the 
history  and  jurisprudence  of  the  State.  Vide  argu- 
ment of  Henry  C.  Robinson,  supra,  p.  18. 

The  moral  effect  upon  the  residents  of  these  smaller 
towns  which  are  unduly  favored,  and  upon  the  citizens 
of  the  State,  of  having  such  a  system  of  legalized  in  jus- 


94  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

tice  maintained  year  after  year,  is  too  serious  to  be 
lightly  considered.  But  every  citizen  sooner  or  later 
must  come  to  the  realization  that  popular  government 
in  Connecticut  is  a  sham ;  that  the  State  has  not  kept  up 
to  the  high  standard  that  was  adopted  by  its  founders ; 
that  many  people  are  enjoying  unusual  and  unjust 
advantages  in  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  constitution, 
through  the  refusal  of  the  legislature  to  enact  laws  in 
accordance  with  present  conditions,  and  that  a  different 
code  of  morals  is  applied  by  many  of  our  citizens  to 
politics  and  to  statecraft  from  that  which  governs  them 
in  business  and  social  affairs.  Such  a  condition  can- 
not fail  to  be  in  the  highest  degree  injurious  to  the 
moral  sense  of  any  community.  It  is  repugnant  to  all 
feelings  of  justice  and  fair  play,  and  it  is  a  well  known 
fact  that  there  are  many  of  the  citizens  of  these  smaller 
communities,  which  have  inherited  an  unjust  prepon- 
derance of  power,  who  would  be  only  too  willing  to 
surrender  all  but  what  is  their  just  due  and  have  the 
evil  rectified. 

The  writer  knows  from  his  own  experience  and 
observation,  that  this  is  the  case  in  his  own  home,  in 
one  of  those  smaller  towns  which  is  unjustly  favored 
at  the  expense  of  others,  and  he  believes  strongly  that 
the  sense  of  fairness  inherent  in  the  people  of  the  State, 
will  cause  many  other  like  communities  to  insist,  that 
justice  shall  be  done  to  every  town  and  city  in  this  mat- 
ter of  representation. 


CHAPTER   XII 

INJUSTICE  TO  CITIZENS 

BESIDE  the  cities  and  towns  of  the  State,  there 
are  other  organizations,  which  suffer  by  reason 
of  the  unjust  discriminations  and  restrictions  flowing 
from  the  constitution,  to  the  great  detriment  of  the 
State.  Reference  is  now  had  to  those  associations  of 
citizens  who  have  banded  together  with  a  common  pur- 
pose, in  order  to  bring  about  what  seems  to  them  some 
important  social  or  governmental  reform,  such  as  the 
Law  and  Order  League,  the  Retail  Merchants'  Associa- 
tion, the  Federation  of  Labor,  the  Temperance  Asso- 
ciations, the  Civil  Service  and  Good  Government  Clubs, 
and  the  Constitutional  Reform  Association.  Such 
associations  have  become  common  of  late  throughout 
the  country ;  they  are  in  most  instances  composed  of 
sincere  and  disinterested  citizens,  who  are  banded 
together  to  work  unselfishly  for  certain  results,  which 
in  their  opinion  tend  to  the  well-being  of  the  com- 
munity. In  many  other  States  they  have  become 
powerful,  have  achieved  results  in  the  direction  of  the 
enforcement  of  law,  the  prevention  of  crime,  the  puri- 
fication of  politics  and  the  passage  of  good  laws ;  but 
in  the  State  of  Connecticut,  solely  by  reason  of  the 
restrictions  and  discriminations  of  the  constitution,  and 
the  laws  enacted  under  it,  they  have  been  unable  to 
obtain  any  adequate  or  fair  representation,  or  to  accom- 
plish in  any  satisfactory  degree  the  objects  of  their 
existence. 


96  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.     ' 

The  Law  and  Order  League  is  an  organization  which 
has  the  sympathy  and  support  of  many  of  the  best 
citizens  of  the  State,  but  it  never  can  succeed  in  accom- 
pHshing  its  various  objects,  among  which  are  the  enact- 
ment of  good  laws  and  their  enforcement,  unless  it 
begins  at  the  source  of  the  stream,  which  is  in  this 
case  the  fundamental  law  under  which  we  live, — the 
State  Constitution.  So  long  as  that  is  corrupt,  the 
results  that  flow  from  it  will  surely  be  the  same,  and 
the  injustice,  inequality  and  unfairness  of  our  consti- 
tution, as  applied  to  the  conditions  and  circumstances 
of  the  present  day,  make  it  essentially  corrupt  in  its 
operations.  Let  the  people  who  are  interested  in  the 
success  of  the  Law  and  Order  League,  consider 
this  question  comprehensively :  let  them  realize  that 
in  order  to  have  the  right  kind  of  laws  passed,  and  the 
enforcement  of  such  laws,  they  must  begin  at  the 
source  of  all  law.  Let  them  then  fearlessly  announce 
that  it  is  their  intention  to  endorse  at  the  polls,  that 
party  or  those  men  who  propose  to  rectify  this  system 
of  legalized  inequality  and  unfairness,  and  they  will 
soon  see  that  it  will  be  much  easier  to  accomplish  the 
object  of  their  organization. 

Another  reason  beside  that  of  abstract  fairness 
should  impel  them  to  this  course.  As  the  legislature 
is  now  constituted,  it  is  a  practical  impossibility  for 
the  Law  and  Order  League  to  secure  any  representa- 
tion in  either  branch,  because  from  the  necessities  of 
the  case,  those  interested  in  the  League  are  principally 
found  in  the  large  cities  of  the  State,  and  as  is  well 
known,  the  cities  of  the  State  of  Connecticut  are  well 
nigh  disfranchised. 


INJUSTICE   TO    CITIZENS.  97 

Suppose,  however,  that  the  constitution  provided 
for  equal  representation,  and  that  the  City  of  New 
Haven  was  entitled  to  send  twenty  representatives 
to  the  legislature  instead  of  two.  Is  there  any 
doubt  that  with  the  city  subdivided  into  twenty  dis- 
tricts, the  Law  and  Order  League  would  be  able 
to  elect,  not  only  one  but  several  of  the  repre- 
sentatives from  the  city?  Whereas,  under  the  present 
system,  the  two  representatives  elected  at  large  are 
invariably  secured  by  one  or  the  other  of  the  dominant 
political  parties.  The  members  of  the  Law  and  Order 
League  do  not  appreciate  their  power,  nor  do  they 
know  how  properly  to  use  it.  They  should  learn  a 
lesson  from  the  independent  voters  of  the  country, 
formerly  called  mugwumps,  who  have  increased  so 
largely  in  the  last  few  years,  that  in  many  States  they 
hold  the  balance  of  power  and  decide  elections  as  they 
w'ish.  Let  the  members  of  the  Law  and  Order  League 
realize  that  in  state  elections  at  least,  in  order  to 
achieve  their  objects,  they  should  vote  independently 
of  the  party  to  which  they  are  affiliated  on  National 
issues. 

Independent  thinkers  should  become  independent 
voters,  and  vote  for  the  party  and  the  men  who 
seem  most  sincere  and  most  earnest  in  desiring  to 
accomplish  needed  reforms,  even  though  they  differ 
with  that  party  and  those  men  on  National  issues. 
The  persistency  wath  which  many  of  the  best  men  in 
the  State  continue  to  vote  for  the  candidates  of  that 
party  which  has  refused  to  fairly  consider  the  question 
of  a  constitutional  convention,  and  has  shamelessly 
within  the  last  few  years  violated  its  pledges,  to  remedy 
some  of  the  most  flagrant  evils  of  our  present  consti- 
7 


98  THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

tution,  remimds  one  of  the  many  years  when  the  minis- 
ters of  the  South,  and  many  in  the  North  as  well, 
attempted  to  justify  slavery  as  a  divine  institution,  and 
cast  all  their  influence  and  their  votes  against  the  little 
band  of  abolitionists,  who  were  endeavoring  to  amend 
the  national  constitution  in  order  to  procure  justice  and 
equal  rights  for  all.  In  one  case  slavery  was  the  law 
of  the  land  and  its  maintenance  was  desired  by  those 
who  would  profit  thereby  in  pocket,  power  and  posi- 
tion. In  the  other  case,  the  outrageous  inequalities  of 
the  constitution  of  1818  are  still  the  law  of  the  State, 
and  upon  this  condition  of  affairs  being  maintained, 
depends  the  ability  of  the  machine  politicians  to  con- 
tinue in  power,  even  when  they  poll  fewer  votes  than 
their  opponents. 

On  the  26th  of  September,  1894,  the  Rev.  Dr.  New- 
man Smyth,  pastor  of  the  Center  Church  of  New 
Haven,  as  President  of  the  Law  and  Order  League, 
in  a  letter  to  the  Board  of  Police  Commissioners,  calls 
upon  them  to  see  that  the  violators  of  the  license  law 
and  the  gamblers  be  properly  dealt  with. 

Would  not  the  Law  and  Order  League  be  more  sure 
of  accomplishing  its  purpose,  if  it  were  to  put  itself  in 
a  position  where  its  members  could  have  some  voice  in 
framing  the  laws,  and  in  the  selection  of  the  members 
of  the  Board  of  Police  Commissioners,  instead  of  wait- 
ing until  they  are  chosen  by  our  present  defective 
methods,  and  then  pleading  with  them  to  do  their  duty? 

Would  it  not  be  the  part  of  wisdom  for  the  Law 
and  Order  League  to  go  back  to  the  fountain  head 
of  all  Connecticut  laws,  and  demand  that  the  entire 
system  be  revised  and  changed  on  the  basis  that  the 
vote  of  everv  man  shall  be  of  equal  power  and  effect 


INJUSTICE   TO    CITIZENS.  99 

to  that  of  every  other  man,  that  the  vote  of  the 
members  of  the  Law  and  Order  League  in  the  City 
of  New  Haven,  shall  be  as  powerful  in  choosing  the 
legislators  of  the  State,  who  frame  our  laws,  as  the 
vote  of  the  inhabitants  of  any  other  town  or  city? 
Would  they  not  be  wise  to  array  themselves,  regard- 
less of  party,  on  the  side  that  advocates  and  pledges 
an  honest  and  a  perfect  ballot  law,  an  efficient  cor- 
rupt practices  act,  proper  regulation  of  the  lobby  and  a 
constitutional  convention. 

The  only  way  that  reforms  in  government  can  now 
be  achieved,  is  by  the  action  of  the  independent  voters, 
who  do  not  hesitate  to  say  to  the  party  managers, 
we  shall  vote  with  you  if  you  pledge  your  party  to 
the  changes  which  we  desire,  if  you  faithfully  carry 
out  these  pledges  when  in  power,  and  if  you  put  up 
men  as  candidates  for  office  who  represent  those  ideas. 
Otherwise,  and  in  case  your  opponents  comply  with 
these  terms,  we  shall  vote  against  you  and  with  them. 

Only  in  this  manner  have  civil  service  reformers 
been  able  during  the  past  twenty  years  to  bring  about 
the  great  change  that  they  have  desired.  The  man- 
agers of  the  prevailing  party  in  the  State  of  Connecti- 
cut feel,  that  although  the  members  of  the  Law  and 
Order  League  who  belong  to  that  party,  sincerely 
desire  the  accomplishment  of  the  reforms  so  ably 
stated  and  advocated  by  their  worthy  president,  that 
they  love  their  party  more  and  will  always  be  found 
on  election  day  voting  the  straight  ticket.  It  is  for 
this  reason  that  the  party  has  dared  to  openly  violate 
its  pledges,  regarding  constitution  and  ballot  reform 
in  the  past  few  years. 


loo        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

As-  proving  this,  recall  the  recent  proposition  to 
have  the  County  Commissioners  elected  by  the  people, 
a  reform  greatly  desired  by  the  Law  and  Order  League 
and  the  Temperance  party,  as  well  as  by  the  demo- 
cratic party,  which  so  stated  in  its  platform.  If  the 
republican  party  had  not  felt  certain  of  the  votes  of 
the  republican  members  of  the  League  in  any  event,  it 
would  have  been  compelled  to  incorporate  a  similar 
plank  in  its  platform,  and  the  reform  would  have  been 
accomplished,  always  providing  that  they  kept  their 
pledges. 

The  intelligent  leaders  of  the  different  Labor 
Organizations  of  the  State,  are  beginning  to  realize 
that  under  the  present  system,  it  is  impossible  for 
them  to  secure  their  rightful  representation  in  the  legis- 
lature, whereas,  if  the  cities  in  which  these  organiza- 
tions are  found,  were  given  equal  rights  in  the 
matter  of  representation  with  the  country  towns,  it 
would  be  entirely  possible  for  them  to  send  their  own 
representatives  to  the  legislature,  and  guard  their  inter- 
ests and  secure  such  legislation  as  they  might  be 
entitled  to. 

During  the  last  campaign  the  demand  for  a  constitu- 
tional convention  was  endorsed  by  the  various  labor 
organizations  in  the  State.  They  asserted  that  the 
workingman's  vote  should  count  for  as  much  in  Hart- 
ford as  that  of  any  other  man  in  the  State,  and 
denounced  the  system  by  which  voters  in  the  large 
cities  are  practically  disfranchised. 

The  same  reason  applies  to  the  temperance  vote 
of  the  State.  Under  the  present  system  it  is  hardly 
probable  that  they  can  ever  get  a  fair  representation 
in   the    legislature,    whereas,    if    representation   were 


INJUSTICE   TO   CITIZENS.  loi 

in  accordance  with  population,  their  power  would  be 
greatly  increased.  This  has  been  partly  appreciated, 
for  the  advocates  of  temperance  have  at  different  times 
endorsed  the  demand  for  a  constitutional  convention. 
If  the  cities  had  fair  representation,  the  Retail 
Merchants'  Associations,  organizations  composed  of 
prominent  business  men  and  tax-payers,  whose  avowed 
purpose  is  to  secure  proper  legislation  in  regard  to 
credits,  taxation,  etc.,  would  undoubtedly  be  able  in 
many  of  the  cities,  to  elect  their  own  representatives 
to  the  legislature,  who  would  personally  advocate  these 
reforms,  and  no  one  can  deny  that  such  men  are 
entitled  to  be  thus  represented. 


CHAPTER   XIII 

METHODS  OF  CHANGING  THE  CONSTITUTION 

IN  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  the  way  in  which 
a  change  should  be  accomphshed  has  naturahy 
received  considerable  attention.  Tw^o  methods  have 
been  proposed  in  addition  to  the  one  provided  in  the 
organic  law :  one  by  means  of  a  constitutional  com- 
mission and  the  other  through  a  constitutional  conven- 
tion. The  method  provided  by  the  constitution  itself 
is  Article  XI  of  that  instrument  and  reads  as  follows : 

Article  Eleventh. 

Of  Amendments  to  the  Constitution. 

Whenever  a  majority  of  the  house  of  representatives  shall 
deem  it  necessary  to  alter  or  amend  this  Constitution,  they 
may  propose  such  alteration  and  amendments ;  which  pro- 
posed amendments  shall  be  continued  to  the  next  General 
Assembly,  and  be  published  with  the  laws  which  may  have 
been  passed  at  the  same  session ;  and  if  two  thirds  of  each 
house,  at  the  next  session  of  said  Assembly,  shall  approve 
the  amendments  proposed,  by  yeas  and  nays,  said  amendments 
shall,  by  the  Secretary,  be  transmitted  to  the  town  clerk  in 
each  town  in  the  state,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  present  the 
same  to  the  inhabitants  thereof,  for  their  consideration,  at  a 
town  meeting,  legally  warned  and  held  for  that  purpose;  and 
if  it  shall  appear,  in  a  manner  to  be  provided  by  law,  that  a 
majority  of  the  electors  present  at  such  meetings  shall  have 
approved  such  amendments,  the  same  shall  be  valid,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  as  a  part  of  this  Constitution." 

It  will  readily  be  seen  that  this  method,  if  it  were 
the  only  one  possible,  is  open  to  grave  objections,  and 
that  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  State 


CHANGING   THE   CONSTITUTION.  103 

could  be  constantly  defeated,  by  reason  of  the  long 
delay  necessitated  before  an  amendment  can  receive  its 
final  approval.  The  history  of  proposed  amendments 
during  the  past  eighty  years  fully  confirms  these 
objections,  for  since  the  adoption  of  the  constitution 
ninety-six  amendments  have  been  proposed  by  the 
house,  but  only  thirty-four  of  these  were  ever  sub- 
mitted by  the  following  General  Assembly  to  the 
people  for  an  expression  of  their  views. 

Naturally  the  legislature  resents  any  attempt  on  the 
part  of  the  people,  to  amend  the  constitution  so  as  to 
in  any  way  restrict  its  power,  and  although  a  large 
majority  of  the  people  may  insist  upon  some  amend- 
ment of  this  sort,  the  requirement  that  it  shall  be 
approved  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  General  Assembly, 
is  usually  sufficient  to  defeat  their  expressed  wish. 

This  was  illustrated  in  the  case  of  Article  X  of  the 
amendments,  providing  for  the  election  of  Justices  of 
the  Peace  by  the  people,  instead  of  their  appointment 
by  the  General  Assembly,  which  reform  took  many 
years  to  accomplish,  and  had  to  pass  four  different 
houses  before  it  was  finally  submitted  to  the  people 
,  for  their  action. 

The  method  of  amendment  by  a  constitutional  com- 
mission, amounts  to  nothing  more  or  less  than  having 
the  proposed  amendments  prepared  for  the  legislature 
by  a  commission  of  their  own  choosing,  and  is  open 
to  all  the  objections  of  the  way  just  mentioned.  There 
is  also  danger  of  greater  delay,  and  that  the  members 
of  the  commission  may  be  unfairly  chosen  by  the 
legislature,  and  may  not  be  true  representatives  of  the 
will  of  the  majority  of  the  people. 


T04        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.    ' 

A  conventicn  composed  of  members  elected  directly 
by  the  people,  for  the  purpose  of  proposing  amend- 
ments and  a  complete  revision  of  the  constitution 
directly  to  the  people,  for  their  approval  or  rejection, 
seems  jto  be  the  most  equitable,  expeditious  and  direct 
method  of  any  that  has  been  proposed.  The  legality 
of  this  mode  of  procedure,  however,  has  been  faintly 
questioned  by  the  opponents  of  constitutional  reform 
in  the  State,  on  the  ground  that  the  constitution  does 
not  give  the  Assembly  any  power  to  call  such  a  conven-* 
tion,  and  that  the  method  provided  in  Section  XI 
should  be  considered  exclusive.  But  it  is  easy  to  show 
that  this  objection  has  no  sound  basis.  The  Consti- 
tution itself  in  its  First  Article  declares, — "that  all 
political  power  is  inherent  in  the  people,  and  all  free 
governments  are  founded  on  their  authority,  and  that 
they  have  at  all  times  an  undeniable  and  indefeasible 
right  to  alter  their  form  of  government  in  such 
manner  as  they  may  think  expedient." 

Jameson,  in  his  admirable  work  on  the  constitution, 
instances  many  States  where  conventions  have  been 
called  by  the  legislature  without  there  being  any  specific 
authority  to  do  so,  and  he  states  on  page  211  : 

"That  whenever  a  constitution  needs  a  general  revision  a 
convention  is  indispensably  necessary,  and  if  there  is  contained 
in  the  Constitution  no  provision  for  such  a  body,  the  calling 
for  one  is  believed  to  be  directly  within  the  scope  of  the 
ordinary  legislative  power,  and  it  must  be  laid  <iown  as  among 
the  established  prerogatives  of  the  General  Assemblies,  that 
the  Constitution  being  silent,  whenever  they  deem  it  expedient, 
they  may  call  conventions  to  revise  the  fundamental  law." 

The  objection  that  this  method  is  unconstitutional 
and  revolutionary,  has  been   declared  invalid  by  the 


CHANGING  THE   CONSTITUTION.  X05 

courts  and  by  many  prominent  authorities,  among 
whom  are  some  of  the  leading  repubhcan  lawyers  of 
the  State. 

In  1873  the  Hon.  Henry  B.  Harrison,  who  has 
since  been  Governor  of  Connecticut,  was  a  member 
of  the  lower  branch  of  the  General  Assembly.  His 
devotion  to  the  republican  party  has  never  been  ques- 
tioned, but  he  is  too  fair-minded  a  man  and  too  able  a 
lawyer,  to  be  a  partizan  where  the  political  rights  of 
the  citizens  of  the  State  are  concerned.  Speaking  on 
the  bill  for  submitting  to  the  people  the  question  of 
calling  a  constitutional  convention,  he  said : 

"It  is  said  that  this  is  a  revolutionary  proceeding — that  the 
people  of  the  State  cannot  make  a  constitution.  The  people 
of  Connecticut  once  had  the  power  to  establish  such  a  consti- 
tution as  they  saw  fit,  and  they  did  it.  Thej'  made  the  first 
written  constitution  the  world  ever  saw,  and  in  1818  they 
exercised  the  power  to  supersede  the  old  and  gave  us  the 
one  we  now  have.  The  power  of  a  free  people  to  change 
their  form  of  government  in  a  peaceful  manner  is  undeniable. 
When  they  say  an  amendment  can  be  made  in  a  certain  way, 
they  do  not  abrogate  all  power  from  themselves  to  alter  it  as 
they  see  fit.  The  general  sweeping  power  is  reserved  to  them- 
selves. The  people  have  a  right  to  make  a  constitution,  and 
the  legislature  has  the  right  to  make  a  law  under  which  they 
can  act. 

In  twenty-five  states  which  were  situated  just  as  we  are, 
conventions  were  called  and  duly  established,  and  Jameson 
asserts  that  it  is  too  late  to  submit  the  question  whether  the 
people  have  a  right  to  call  a  convention.  With  all  the  routine 
of  legislative  duties,  in  committees,  etc.,  acting  on  public  and 
private  bills,  all  of  which  must  be  discussed,  is  it  possible 
for  the  legislature  to  consider  properly  the  question  of  a  new 
constitution?  Let  us  go  at  it  as  did  our  forefathers,  and 
attend  to  it  in  convention." 


io6        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

With  reference  to  the  method  of  changing  the  con- 
stitution and  tlie  right  of  the  General  Assembly  to  call 
a  constitutional  convention,  whose  action  if  ratified  by 
a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  State  would  be  binding, 
a  prominent  republican,  who  has  been  Governor  of  the 
State,  says  : 

"You  will  notice  that  no  provision  is  made  for  a  constitu- 
tional convention,  but  the  question  arises,  if  the  General 
Assembly  should  decide  that  a  constitutional  convention  should 
be  held,  and  the  people  should  elect  delegates  who  should 
agree  upon  a  new  constitution  or  a  revision  of  the  old  one, 
and  this  should  be  submitted  to  and  approved  by  the  people, 
who  shall  raise  the  question  as  to  the  legality  of  that  consti- 
tution ?  It  will  be  the  act  of  the  people.  No  town  can  raise 
the  question  of  its  validity,  it  seems  to  me,  and  I  do  not  see 
that  any  court  can  be  called  upon  in  any  way  to  pass  on  the 
question.  .  .  .  The  people,  I  take  it,  are  supreme.  It  was 
by  direction  of  the  people  that  the  old  constitution  was  formu- 
lated in  1818,  and  if  the  people  had  the  right  to  make  this 
constitution,  they  have  the  right  to  make  another  and  sub- 
stitute it  for  it." 

In  a  very  able  paper  the  Hon.  Simeon  E.  Baldwin, 
referring  to  this  subject,  says: 

"These  figures  t^nd  to  show  that  the  plan  of  amending 
the  constitution  by  a  rcfcrctiduin  to  the  people  is  less  likely 
to  secure  their  interest  in  the  work,  than  that  of  acting  by 
their  delegates  in  a  constitutional  convention. 

There  is  no  State  in  the  Union  but  our  own  that  has  not  held 
such  a  convention  since  1818. 

The  right  of  the  legislature  to  call  one,  where  the  constitu- 
tion makes  no  express  provision  for  it,  has  been  affirmed  by 
the  practice  of  many  States,  and  the  courts  of  Pennsylvania. 
Hartford  has  been  the  seat  of  two  constitutional  conventions, 
nearly  two  centuries  apart.  A  "land  of  steady  habits'  is  slow 
to  abandon  laws  that  have  been  long  tried,  for  laws  that  are 
untried.     But  this  is  sure,  that  our  frame  of  government  can 


CHANGING   THE   CONSTITUTION.  107 

regain  the  symmetry  of  that  of  1639,  or  of  that  of  1818,  only 
in  the  way  in  which  it  was  then  constituted  or  reconstituted, 
by  a  deliberative  body  of  delegates  chosen  by  the  towns  for 
that  special  work." 

Tlie  people  are  sovereign  and  have  the  right  to 
choose  their  own  form  of  government,  and  can  make 
and  unmake  constitutions  at  will.  The  present  con- 
stitution provides  only  for  alterations  and  amendments 
thereof,  and  does  not  provide  for  the  calling  of  a  con- 
stitutional convention,  undoubtedly  because  such  provi- 
sion woitld  be  superfluous,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it 
declares,  that  the  people  have  at  all  times  an  undenia- 
ble and  indefeasible  right  to  alter  their  form  of  govern- 
ment, in  such  manner  as  they  may  think  expedient. 
The  people  are  the  ultimate  power  in  the  State,  higher 
than  the  legislature  and  higher  than  the  towns,  for  a 
constitution  in  one  sense,  is  nothing  more  or  less  than 
a  limitation  upon  the  powers  of  the  legislature  by  the 
people,  and  the  towns,  as  is  well  settled  by  precedent 
and  by  the  political  jurisprudence  of  the  State,  are 
absolutely  subject  to  the  rule  of  the  legislature. 

In  considering  the  most  desirable  method  to  be  pur- 
sued, in  bringing  about  the  much  needed  changes  in 
the  fimdamental  law  of  the  State,  it  seems  proper  to 
refer  again  to  what  is  probably  the  most  important 
defect  in  the  present  constitution,  and  to  the  remedy 
that  will  be  proposed  by  the  members  of  the  coming 
Constitutional  Reform  party  in  the  State ;  for  without 
doubt  such  a  party  will  soon  be  formed,  by  the  united 
action  of  the  great  mass  of  voters  who  are  determined 
that  these  needed  reforms  shall  be  made,  and  that 
Connecticut  shall  no  longer  remain  the  State  of  "rotten 
borough"  and  minoritv  rttle. 


io8        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

Those  who  claim  that  any  attempt  to  modify  the 
existing-  system  of  town  representation,  by  granting  an 
increased  number  of  representatives  in  proportion  to 
population,  is  an  attack  upon  the  system  itself,  and 
would  result  in  wholly  undermining  the  principle  of 
town  government,  must  either  know  that  such  a  claim 
is  false,  or  they  show  a  very  imperfect  knowledge  of 
the  history  of  town  government  as  exemplified  in  the 
sister  States  of  New  England  during  the  past  200 
years.  In  all  these  States  a  town  system  was  adopted 
and  has  since  prevailed,  but  in  most  of  them,  the 
principle  of  popular  representation,  with  the  people  as 
a  political  unit,  and  not  the  towns,  has  been  fully 
recognized. 

The  bill  introduced  by  the  republican  representa- 
tive from  the  City  of  New  Haven,  in  a  recent  legisla- 
ture, for  a  constitutional  amendment  giving  the  large 
towns  the  right  to  send  more  representatives  to  the 
house  than  the  smaller  ones,  is  not  considered  by  him 
and  his  constituents  to  be  an  attack  upon  the  system 
of  town  representation,  but  simply  a  regulation  of  that 
system  in  the  direction  of  justice  and  equity. 


CHAPTER   XIV 

CONCLUSION 

IN  the  preceding  pages  it  will  be  observed  that  after 
giving  a  brief  historical  account  of  Connecticut's 
achievements  as  a  constitution  maker,  and  of  the  agita- 
tion during  the  past  half  century  for  a  change,  we  have 
classified  the  defects  of  the  constitution  of  1818  under 
five  general  heads,  viz. :  Unequal  Representation, 
Plurality  Elections,  and  the  special  imperfections  per- 
taining to  the  legislative,  executive  and  judicial 
branches  of  the  government.  Directly  resulting  from 
these  defects,  sometimes  from  one,  but  more  often 
from  several  of  them,  we  have  pointed  out  the  evils 
of  unequal  taxation,  civic  corruption  and  various  forms 
of  injustice. 

The  method  of  treatment  of  the  subject  has  been  to 
give  a  comprehensive  view  of  its  historical  and  legal 
aspects,  and  to  discuss  the  questions  raised  in  a  non- 
partizan  and  philosophic  spirit,  with  special  reference 
to  their  influence  upon  the  civic  and  moral  welfare 
of  the  people,  and  upon  the  fair  name  of  the  State. 

In  Connecticut,  so  long  known  as  the  "land  of  steady 
habits,"  the  people  are  slow  to  make  radical  changes, 
especially  when  they  concern  her  organic  law.  The 
spirit  of  conservatism  has  always  controlled  their 
action,  but  the  intelligent  people  of  the  State  do  not 
believe  that  lack  of  progress  is  a  part  of  wisdom,  and 
they  should  bear  in  mind  that  there  are  two  kinds  of 
conservatives, — those  who  hold  fast  to  the  old  because 
it  is  good,  and  those  who  are  like  the  hen  that  keeps 
on  sitting  on  stale  eggs. 


no        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.    ' 

This  long  contest  for  equal  representation  in  Con- 
necticut, lasting  for  half  a  century,  Jias  a  most  striking 
historical  coimterpart  in  the  agitation  in  England  over 
the  reform  bills  involving  this  identical  question,  which 
lasted  nearly  forty  years  before  the  first  victory  was 
won,  and  a  hundred  years  before  it  was  made  com- 
plete by  the  British  Reform  Acts  of  1867-68,  concern- 
ing which  we  quote  the  following  from  Sir  Thomas 
Erskine  May : 

"As  society  expanded,  and  new  classes  were  called  into 
existence,  the  pressure  of  public  opinion  upon  the  legislature 
was  assuming  a  more  decisive  character.  The  grave  defects 
of  the  representation  were  notorious,  and  some  minor  elec- 
toral abuses  had  been  from  time  to  time  corrected.  But  the 
fundamental  evils. — nomination  boroughs,  limited  rights  of 
election,  the  sale  of  seats  in  parliament,  the  prevalence  of 
bribery,  and  the  enormous  expense  of  elections, — though  con- 
stantly exposed,  long  held  their  ground  against  all  assailants. 
So  far  back  as  1770  Lord  Chatham  had  denounced  these 
flagrant  abuses.  'Before  the  end  of  this  century.'  he  said, 
'either  the  parliament  will  reform  itself  from  within,  or  be 
reformed  with  a  vengeance  from  without.'  In  1782,  and  again 
in  1783  and  1785,  his  distinguished  son,  William  Pitt,  con- 
demned the  abuses  of  the  representation,  and  proposed  schemes 
of  parliamentary  reform.  In  1793  Mr.  Grey  (afterwards  Earl 
Grey)  submitted  a  motion  on  the  same  subject;  but  the 
excesses  of  the  French  Revolution,  political  troubles  at  home, 
and  exhausting  wars  abroad  discouraged  the  supporters  of 
reform  for  many  years.  Under  more  favorable  conditions  the 
question  assumed  greater  proportions.  Lord  John  Russell 
especially  distinguished  himself  in  1820,  and  in  several  suc- 
ceeding years,  by  the  able  exposure  of  abuses  and  temperate 
schemes  of  reform.  His  efforts  were  assisted  by  the  scanda- 
lous disclosures  of  bribery  at  Grampound,  Penryn  and  East 
Retford.  All  moderate  proposals  were  rejected;  but  the 
concurrence  of  a  dissolution,  on  the  death  of  George  IV,  with 
the  French  Revolution  of  1830,  and  an  ill-timed  declaration  of 


CONCLUSIOxV.  Ill 

the  Duke  of  Wellington  that  the  representation  was  perfect 
and  could  not  be  improved,  suddenly  precipitated  the  memora- 
ble crisis  of  parliamentary  reform.  It  now  fell  to  the  lot  of 
Earl  Grey,  as  premier,-  to  be  the  leader  in  a  cause  which  he 
had  espoused  in  his  early  youth." 

One  of  the  greatest  and  most  satisfying  incidents 
in  British  history  in  connection  with  these  reform 
bills,  was  the  spectacle  of  that  great  statesman.  Earl 
Grey,  in  his  68th  year,  as  Prime  Minister  bringing 
to  a  successful  issue  the  reform  bills  which,  as  Mr. 
Grey,  he  had  advocated  in  the  House  of  Commons 
forty  years  before ;  and  we  feel  sure  that  a  personal 
allusion  here  will  not  be  inappropriate,  when  we 
express  our  deep  regret,  that  the  man  who  has  been 
the  most  prominent  advocate  of  constitutional  reform 
in  the  State  of  Connecticut  for  the  past  fifty  years,  the 
Nestor  of  Connecticut  journalism,  who  has  so  recently 
been  removed  from  us,  Avas  not  spared  to  behold  the 
accomplishment  of  this  work  which  was  so  near  to  his 
heart. 

Let  any  one  who  has  the  slightest  doubt  how  this 
question  strikes  the  mind  of  any  disinterested  person, 
who  has  never  before  reflected  upon  the  system ;  state 
the  situation  frankly  and  accurately,  explain  in  detail 
the  present  method  of  representation  in  the  State  of 
Connecticut,  and  see  if  in  every  case  the  conviction 
is  not  expressed,  that  it  is  an  outrageously  unjust 
method,  and  the  only  wonder  is  that  the  people  of 
Connecticut  are  willing  to  endure  it  for  a  day. 

A  system  such  as  this  must  surely  undermine  and 
sap  the  foundations  of  all  political  morality,  and  thus 
work  untold  injury  to  the  people  of  the  Stat€.  And 
in  concluding  we  appeal  to  the  conscience  of  the  people 


112        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.  ' 

of  Connecticut  regardless  of  party,  to  unite  in  over- 
throwing a  system  which  is  so  palpably  wrong  and  has 
borne  such  fruit. 

Are  we  to  abandon  the  beliefs  on  which  this  govern- 
ment was  founded ;  the  belief  that  all  men  are  free  and 
equal  as  regards  political  rights?  Are  we  to  abandon 
the  belief  that  a  government  of  the  people  and  by  the 
people  is  the  best  form,  and  that  the  expressed  wish 
of  the  larger  number  of  people  ought  to  govern  ?  Are 
we  to  admit  that  popular  government  is  a  failure,  and 
that  any  attempt  to  obtain  under  it  equal  justice,  is 
what  a  prominent  politician  once  called  an  "irri- 
descent  dream." 

This  is  not  a  party  question  and  should  not  be  con- 
sidered such,  but  is  a  question  of  right  and  justice ; 
a  question  of  progress  or  old-fog}'ism ;  a  question  of 
maintaining  the  position  of  Connecticut  in  her  proper 
place  among  the  States  of  the  Union ;  a  question  of 
advancing  the  best  interests  of  the  State,  by  availing 
ourselves  of  the  results  of  the  experience  and  the 
accumulated  knowledge  of  the  past  fifty  years ;  a 
question  of  self  respect  to  those  whose  interests  are 
now  sacrificed  to  gratify  the  wishes  of  a  few  party 
leaders. 

As  proving  that  this  is  not  properly  a  party  question, 
we  need  only  refer  to  the  many  citations  from  the 
republican  newspapers  of  the  State  found  in  the 
appendix,  all  of  them  advocating  constitutional  reform 
in  general,  or  in  some  particular. 

A  careful  examination  will  show  that  every  one  of 
the  five  defects  of  the  present  constitution,  has  been 
condemned  and  reform  urged,  by  some  one  or  other 
of  the  leading  republican  citizens  and  ncAVspapers. 


CONCLUSION.  113 

It  is  true,  however,  that  the  Democratic  State  Con- 
vention at  Hartford,  September  14,  1892,  at  which 
they  nominated  a  State  ticket  that  was  elected  by  a 
majority,  adopted  unanimously  the  following  resolu- 
tion as  defining  the  position  of  the  party  upon  these 
subjects : 

"We  declare  for  a  constitutional  convention  initiated  by  an 
act  of  the  General  Assembly,  first  submitting  to  the  electors 
the  question  whether  a  convention  should  be  held  or  should 
not  be  held,  and  finally  again  submitting  to  the  electors  for 
their  approval  or  disapproval  the  form  of  a  constitution  pro- 
posed by  the  convention,  and  we  pledge  ourselves  to  revise 
the  state  constitution,  to  provide  for  the  election  of  state 
officers  by  the  greatest  number  of  votes  cast,  for  the  election 
of  count}'-  commissioners  by  the  people,  for  a  just  system  of 
representation  in  the  General  Assembly,  and  for  such  further 
reforms  as  will  restore  self-government  to  Connecticut." 

With  all  this  talk  of  corruption  and  bribery,  of  injus- 
tice and  lack  of  progress,  we  must  remember  that  it 
is  the  system  and  not  the  commonwealth  at  large 
that  is  to  blame.  The  people  of  the  State,  by  a 
large  majority,  any  time  within  the  last  generation, 
would  have  voted  for  the  constitutional  reforms,  neces- 
sar}?-  to  correct  all  these  abuses  if  they  had  ever  been 
given  the  opportunity.  But  the  people  do  not  rule  in 
Connecticut.  The  minority  rules.  It  is  an  oligarchy 
that  controls  the  destinies  of  the  State.  The  political 
bosses  and  machine  politicians,  taking  advantage  of  the 
splendid  opportunity,  offered  by  defects  of  the  anti- 
quated constitution  when  applied  to  the  present  con- 
ditions, have  been  enabled  to  shape  the  destinies  of 
the  commonwealth  ever  since  the  war,  and  to  lead  her 
into  her  present  disgraceful  position  in  the  sisterhood 
of  States. 


114        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.  ' 

If  it  be  true  that  history  repeats  itself ;  if  it  be  true, 
as  stated  in  the  preface,  "that  the  people  themselves 
can  be  depended  upon  to  work  for  right  and  justice, 
whenever  they  fully  understand  and  appreciate  the 
situation" ;  if  it  be  true  that  in  the  end  right  is 
bound  to  prevail,  then  it  is  true  that  the  constitution 
of  1818  is  doomed. 

Every  student  of  Connecticut's  political  history  will 
admit,  if  talking  frankly,  irrespective  of  his  political 
affiliations,  that  before  long  these  glaring  inequalities 
must  be  swept  away.  But  whether  that  time  be 
within  the  next  few  months  or  within  a  few  years, 
this  top-heavy  piece  of  constitutional  patch-work, 
with  only  eleven  original  articles  and  twenty-nine 
amendments,  is  destined  to  go  down  in  history  as 
the  greatest  piece  of  political  hocus-pocus,  as  the  most 
startling  example  of  successful  political  chicanery,  that 
the  world  has  ever  seen,  as  the  most  successful  illus- 
tration of  the  fact,  that  there  are  conditions  when  politi- 
cal managers  can  fool  the  people  almost  all  the  time. 

A  constitution  that  the  State  has  outgrown,  that  is 
fatally  defective,  that  is  at  variance  with  its  own  origi- 
nal principles  and  with  the  intentions  of  its  founders ;  a 
constitution  that  has  become  a  hot-bed  of  injustice  and 
corruption,  that  vitiates  all  attempts  at  framing  good 
legislation  under  it ;  condemned  by  statesmen  of  both 
parties,  yet  retained  and  defended  by  the  party  man- 
agers because  of  the  fact  that  it  gives  them  power 
imfairly  and  unjustly ;  retained  by  them  in  spite  of 
the  protests  of  the  better  element  of  their  own  party, 
man}'  of  whom  for  years  have  gone  on  protesting,  and 
then  voting  to  sustain  it,  because  they  could  not  with- 
stand the  temptation  to  defend  its  manifest  injustice, 
in  order  to  retain  their  party  in  power. 


APPKNDIX 


Since  democratic  journals  would  be  subject  to  a 
charge  of  party  bias  regarding  the  constitution,  the 
following  extracts  are  taken  from  the  editorial  columns 
of  the  leading  republican  and  independent  papers  of 
the  State. 

Nczv  London  Day. 

There  is  a  natural  sense  of  justice  in  mankind, 
particularly  in  self-governed  mankind,  that  protests 
against  an  arbitrary  rule  like  that  in  Connecticut  which, 
refusing  to  give  an  office  to  one  man  who  fails  of  popu- 
lar majority,  yet  gives  it  to  another  man  who  came  even 
farther  from  such  a  majority.  To  make  the  rule  rea- 
sonable, to  satisfy  that  sense  of  justice,  it  would  be 
necessary  to  keep  holding  popular  elections  until  some- 
one did  secure  a  majority. 

Come,  men  and  brethren !  Isn't  all  this  so,  and  isn't 
it  honestly  and  fairly  time  it  was  stopped?  Isn't  it 
from  any  point  of  view  better,  because  it  is  right  and 
true,  to  amend  the  Constitution? 

We  Republicans  have  stood  by  the  old  Constitution 
which  we  didn't  make,  from  a  sense  of  loyalty  and  from 
a  feeling  that  the  wisdom  of  the  fathers  ought  not 
lightly  to  be  condemned.  Perhaps  our  feelings,  too, 
were  slightly  tempered  by  self-interest.  But  when 
we  look  the  situation  fairly  in  the  face,  ought  we 
not,  in  that  sense  of  justice  and  righteousness  in  which 
the  Republican  party  had  its  birth,  which  has  been  our 


Ii6        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.- 

glory  in  the  past,  and  is  our  hope  in  the  future,  to  take 
the  initiative  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  pass 
a  resohition  submitting  this  question  of  the  amend- 
ment of  the  Constitution  to  the  sovereign  people  of 
Connecticut  ? 

New  Haven  Pallad'min. 

Twenty  years  ago  the  Palladium  was  in  favor  of 
constitutional  reform  and  by  a  constitutional  conven- 
tion. It  believed  then,  as  now,  that  no  thorough 
reform  could  be  made,  except  by  calling  a  convention 
elected  by  the  people  as  was  the  convention  of  1818. 
The  bill  prepared  in  1873  and  advocated  by  the  Hon. 
Henry  B.  Harrison,  and  which  provided  for  a  con- 
stitutional convention  at  that  time,  was,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Palladium,  just  and  right.  The  movement  for 
the  reform  was  supported  at  that  time  by  such  men  as 
ex-Governor  Harrison,  Rev.  Dr.  Leonard  Bacon, 
Nathaniel  Wheeler  and  others. 

The  Palladium  believes  that  Connecticut  needs  a 
new  Constitution,  and  that  the  people  have  a  right  to 
vote  upon  the  question  at  an  early  day.  Let  the  ques- 
tion of  constitutional  reform,  and  a  convention,  be 
treated  on  its  merits,  free  from  partizan  pressure,  and 
there  is  no  doubt  of  the  result.  Thousands  of  Repub- 
licans agree  with  us  in  these  views.  Let  them  not  be 
driven  out  of  the  party  by  following  the  stupidly 
obstructive  tactics  of  the  federalists  of  1812-18, 

Meriden  Journal. 

The  Democratic  idea  seems  to  be  as  fair  as  one 
could  wish,  giving  to  the  sovereign  people  so  directly 
as  it  does,  the  control  of  the  whole  matter  of  consti- 


APPENDIX.  117 

tiitional  reform,  and  it  is  far  ahead  of  the  RepubHcan 
plan  in  the  matter  of  saving  time.  We  want  no  more 
delay  than  is  absolutely  necessary.  The  people  and 
papers  of  both  parties  are  in  the  right  temper  now,  and 
the  revision  or  amendments  should  be  put  through  as 
quickly  as  possible  while  this  spirit  prevails. 

Hartford  Courant. 

We  think  that  no  candid  man  who  views  our  sys- 
tem of  representation  rightfully,  and  who  is  not  pre- 
judiced by  the  power  which  it  improperly  flings  into 
the  small  towns,  will  continue  to  advocate  its  preserva- 
tion, when  they  see  the  injustice  and  inequality  of  its 
nature,  and  its  anti-Republican  tendency. 

Our  representation  is  not  based  on  the  actual  num- 
ber of  the  people  (inhabitants,  if  Mr.  Calhoun  prefers 
it).  An  objection  is  urged  to  this  ratio,  on  the  ground 
that  Representatives  should  be  proportioned  to  the 
voting  constituency,  and  not  to  the  aliens,  women  and 
children.  We  do  not  see  the  force  of  this  objection. 
Although  the  latter  class  do  not  enjoy  some  imperfect 
privileges  under  a  Republican  government,  they  are 
all  entitled  to  the  perfect  rights  of  protection.  This 
mode  of  representation  is  certainly  the  most  demo- 
cratic, and  was  assumed  as  such  when  the  State  was 
districted  for  the  choice  of  Senators  and  members  of 
Congress. 

"Neither  is  our  representation  based  on  the  actual 
number  of  voters  in  the  different  towns.  If  it  were 
so,  it  would  furnish  a  better  foundation  than  the  one 
now  in  use,  though  not  so  complete  as  that  constituted 
on  the  numbers  of  inhabitants.  There  are  many  per- 
sons, especially  in  our  large  cities,  who,  though  entitled 


ii8        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

to  the  privilege,  yet  never  claim  it,  or  take  the  neces- 
sary steps  for  qualification. 

Neither  is  our  representation  based  on  the  number 
of  rateable  polls  in  the  towns.  This  basis  has  been 
assumed  in  some  States,  particularly,  if  we  remember 
rightly,  in  Massachusetts,  and  perhaps  there  are  some 
voters  in  this  State  who  would  prefer  it.  It  certainly 
is  more  equable  and  just  than  our  present  mode.  The 
existing  system  in  this  State  is  a  representation  of 
CORPORATIONS,  not  of  the  people.  Each  incorporated 
town,  if  such  act  of  corporation  were  passed  previously 
to  the  Revohition,  is  entitled  to  two  representatives; 
if  since  that  period,  to  one.  No  matter  how  large  or 
how  small  these  towns  may  be ;  no  matter  how  many 
or  how  few  inhabitants  or  voters,  or  taxable  polls  there 
may  be,  the  representation  is  the  same.  Hence  we  are 
fully  justified  in  the  assertion  that  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives in  Connecticut  are  corporation  delegates, 
and  not  representatives  of  the  people.  Is  this  demo- 
cratic? Are  the  rights  of  the  people,  as  such,  secured 
by  this  form  of  government?  Can  the  privileges  of 
all  classes  of  every  description  be  regarded  as  safe, 
under  a  representation  from  Corporations,  instead  of 
one  direct  from  the  people? 

The  inequality  of  this  mode  of  choosing  the  lower 
House  is  very  easily  seen,  and  but  few  examples  are 
necessary  to  exhibit  it.  At  some  future  time,  we  stand 
prepared  to  state  these  examples  at  length,  and  to  mani- 
fest clearly  the  great  injustice  done  to  some  parts  of 
the  community,  by  allowing  ourselves  to  be  governed, 
through  small  corporations,  by  a  minority,  whether  of 
the  inhabitants,  or  people,  or  voters. 


APPENDIX.  119 

JVafcrbiiry  American. 

We  don't  know  whether  the  Repubhcan  party  can 
be  beaten  in  this  State  at  the  next  election  or  not.  If 
anything  will  help  to  that  end  it  will  be  the  defeat  of 
the  plurality  amendment  to-day.  It  is  a  repudiation 
of  party  pledges  that  would  be  only  possible  under 
conditions  of  arrogant  party  confidence.  The  devil  is 
in  too  good  health  to  be  a  saint.  We  congratulate 
Representative  Hall  on  his  higher  sense  of  party  duty 
and  party  honor  than  that  of  his  colleague. 

The  Norzvich  Bulletin. 

The  rejection  of  the  bill  is  discreditable  to  the 
Republican  party,  and  we  believe  contrary  to  the  will 
and  wish  of  the  people  of  Connecticut.  It  makes  the 
Republicans  appear  to  be  the  cheats  and  tricksters 
their  opponents  charged  them  with  being.  The  lead- 
ing Republican  papers  in  the  State  have  labored 
earnestly,  for  the  honoring  of  the  pledge  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Republican  party  to  the  people  in  the 
legislature  of  1893,  and  can  wash  their  hands  of  all 
responsibility  for  this  dishonoring  and  party-injuring 
act. 

The  Windliaui  County  Transcript. 

The  honest  voters  of  the  State  of  Connecticut  want 
the  plurality  amendment  passed  by  the  present  legis- 
lature. The  exhibition  of  peanut  politics  by  some 
members  in  the  discussion  of  this  question,  shows  how 
blind  they  are  when  they  place  party  first  and  justice 
last.  "He  serves  his  party  best  who  serves  his  country 
best."     It  is  right — and  best  for  the  Republican  party, 


120        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

too — that  the  people  should  be  given  an  opportunity 
to  decide  for  themselves  this  question.  Can't  you  trust 
the  people? 

New  Haven  Palladium. 

We  have  been  patiently  waiting  for  some  time,  to 
have  the  Hartford  Courant  answer  the  questions  which 
we  put  to  it  so  often  in  regard  to  holding  a  constitu- 
tional convention;  yet  our  esteemed  contemporary 
makes  no  sign.  It  is  as  dumb  as  any  of  the  oysters 
which  fatten  at  the  bottom  of  New  Haven  Bay. 

Is  it  possible  that,  after  all  its  reform  talk,  it  is 
going  to  be  contented  with  the  passage  of  the  single 
amendment,  looking  to  the  election  of  State  officers  by 
a  plurality  vote  in  1896?  If  it  is  going  to  be  con- 
tented, does  our  esteemed  contemporary  believe  that 
the  people  wiU  be? 

This  is  the  great  question  for  the  Republican  party 
to  consider. 

We  believe  in  Republican  principles,  and  we  want 
to  see  them  triumph.  For  that  reason  we  desire  to 
see  the  Republican  leaders  in  this  State  give  the  people 
what  they  wish.  If  they  do,  then  the  Republican  party 
will  again  be  triumphant  in  this  State;  and,  if  they 
do  not,  it  won't.  We  are  convinced  from  a  large 
amount  of  information  received  during  the  past  six 
weeks,  much  of  it  in  the  form  of  letters  from  voters 
accustomed  to  act  with  the  Republican  party,  that  the 
people  desire  a  thorough  constitutional  reform,  and 
they  desire  to  attain  it  by  means  of  a  constitutional 
convention.  And  if  the  only  reform  should  be 
plurality  elections,  the  people  desire  to  have  it  with- 


APPENDIX.  121 

out  the  delay  which  must  ensue,  should  it  be  achieved 
by  the  instrumentality  of  the  legislature. 

That  a  Republican  paper  like  the  Courant  should  be 
afraid  of  the  people— afraid  to  trust  the  question  of 
constitutional  reform  to  a  convention  chosen  by  the 
people — is  really  humiliating.  The  Courant  assumes 
that  a  convention  would  amend  the  constitution  to  the 
detriment  of  the  Republican  party.  What  is  the  basis 
of  this  assumption?  Now  we  are  not  afraid  of  the 
people  of  Connecticut.  We  do  not  believe  that  their 
representatives  in  constitutional  convention  assembled, 
will  do  anything  to  the  detriment  of  the  common- 
wealth. The  people  of  Connecticut  can  be  trusted.  It 
seems  to  us  that  the  Courant  puts  itself  in  a  very  bad 
position  when  it  asserts  that  they  cannot  be,  and  it 
does  so  assert,  when  it  claims  that  a  constitutional  con- 
vention will  necessarily  do  acts  inimical  to  the  Republi- 
can party.  Thorough  constitutional  reform  will  not 
hurt  the  Republican  party;  it  is  opposing  it  that  has 
hurt  and  will  hurt  it. 

Assuming  that  the  town  system  of  representation  is 
a  vital  part  of  our  system  of  government,  about  the 
certain  destruction  of  which,  by  a  constitutional  con- 
vention, the  Courant  exhibits  a  great  deal  of  needless 
worry,  we  ask  our  esteemed  contemporary  once  more 
to  tell  us,  why  towns  like  Union  and  Killingworth  and 
Hartland,  with  a  total  of  some  1,500  inhabitants, 
should  continue  to  send  six  representatives  to  the 
legislature,  w^hile  towns  like  Orange,  Branford  and 
Seymour,  with  more  than  12,000,  send  only  three! 
Surely  this  is  unjust,  and  the  people  see  that  it  is.  If 
such  injustice  is  maintained  by  the  Republican  party, 
then  the  people  will  vote  against  us.     No  party  can 


122        THE    COXXECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

thrive  on  injustice,  least  of  all  onr  party,  born  of  the 
people.  The  Courant  should  dismiss  its  terrors  and 
have  confidence. 

Derby  Transcript. 

The  Republicans  in  the  legislature  who  are  attempt- 
ing to  ward  off  constitutional  revision,  are  injuring 
their  party  and  playing  into  the  hands  of  the  Demo- 
crats. At  the  next  State  election  the  Democracy  can 
have  no  better  issue  to  go  before  the  people  with,  than 
the  failure  of  the  Republican  legislature  to  enact  an 
equitable  and  just  revision  of  the  constitution. 

Bridgeport  Post. 

.  The  attitude  of  Republicans  who  are  trying  to  defeat 
constitutional  amendments  now  before  the  General 
Assembly,  providing  for  plurality  elections  and  for 
an  enlarged  Senate  with  districts  of  equal  population, 
W'ill  do  more  to  injure  the  party  in  power  than  anything 
that  has  been  done  by  the  present  legislature.  There 
is  a  demand  for  the  changes,  and  to  ward  off  a  con- 
stitutional convention,  the  Republican  House  of  two 
years  ago  wisely  did  not  attempt  to  defeat  these  meas- 
ures. The  Assembly  should  pass  the  two  amendments 
and  thus  satisfy  the  people  of  the  State.  If  they  do 
not  there  are  thousands  of  independent  voters  who  will 
rise  up  in  the  near  future,  tear  from  the  party  its 
power,  and  give  the  Democrats  an  opportunity  to  regu- 
late this  matter  as  it  believes  right. 

Litchfield  Enqitirer. 

Wq  are  glad  the  issue  is  made  so  plain.  The  Repub- 
licans have  hurt  the  State,  greatly  damaged  their  party 


APPENDIX.  123 

reputation  and  given  the  Democrats  a  splendid  State 
issue.  In  this  State  they  can  never  again  claim  to  be 
the  party  of  "great  moral  ideas."  They  have  played 
a  clear  bunco  game  and  the  voters  are  on  to  it. 

Ansonia  Sentinel. 

It  is  a  pity.  The  party  which  goes  before  the  peo- 
ple making  distinct  pledges  of  reforming  the  consti- 
tution, and  then  deliberately  refuses  to  keep  its  word, 
forfeits  the  confidence  of  the  people,  causes  disgust 
and  deserves  reprobation. 

Bridgeport  Post. 

The  Republican  House  evidently  does  not  realize 
v^hat  it  did.  It  dug  its  own  political  grave  and  then 
clapped  joyfully.  It  betrayed  the  people  of  Connec- 
ticut who  last  Fall  trusted  to  the  Republican  party 
the  duty  of  righting  a  wrong.  It  defeated  an  amend- 
ment which  is  designed  to  do  justice  to  the  people. 

Putnam  Patriot. 

The  worst  job  yet  of  this  disappointing  body  of 
representatives,  was  the  defeat  in  the  house  on 
Wednesday  of  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  consti- 
tution, providing  for  the  election  of  State  officers  by 
plurality  instead  of  majority  vote  as  at  present.  This 
is  an  open  flagrant  violation  of  the  pledge  of  the 
Republican  party. 

Stamford  Advocate. 

i.\nother  lesson  the  convention  teaches,  is  that  the 
system  of  representation  is  one  that  makes  it  easier  for 
a  boss  to   rule.     So  long  as   the   largest   city   in   the 


124        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

State,  has  the  same  representation  as  a  town  with  one- 
fortieth  of  its  inhabitants,  so  long  will  the  boss,  once 
placed  in  power,  be  able  to  retain  control,  when  he 
can  use  "influence"  in  the  little  country  villages, 
where,  no  matter  how  much  may  be  said  about  corrup- 
tion in  the  cities,  it  is  easier  to  control  a  caucus  or  an 
election  by  the  use  of  money,  and  other  "influence" 
known  to  the  machine  and  lobby. 

Hartford  Courant. 

The  Republicans  of  the  last  General  Assembly 
started  on  their  way,  in  constitutional  fashion,  amend- 
ments which  will  give  us  plurality  elections  of  State 
officers,  and  a  Senate  re-adjusted  to  have  the  districts 
of  equal  population.  The  party  is  committed,  and  it 
is  committed  in  accordance  with  the  wish  of  the  people. 
The  inflammatory  talk  about  a  forced  constitutional 
convention,  was  met  and  rendered  harmless  by  the  first 
passage  of  these  two  amendments. 

For  the  party  to  stop  now  and  fail  to  carry  to  com- 
pletion the  legislation  that  it  endorsed  and  initiated, 
would  be,  as  the  Democrats  say  of  their  own  measures, 
"perfidy  and  dishonor."  The  Republican  party  doesn't 
do  things  that  way. 

.  It  has  set  out  to  secure  these  reforms  and  it  will, 
it  must  secure  them.  Its  honor  is  involved.  The 
State  convention,  in  the  hurry  and  confusion  of  pro- 
longed balloting,  struck  out  from  the  party  platform 
everything  relating  to  State  matters.  Thoughtful  men 
were  so  much  occupied  with  the  subject  of  the  ticket, 
that  they  let  this  very  peculiar  policy  pass  unques- 
tioned.    Of  course  nothing  is  more  in  order  in  a  State 


APPENDIX.  125. 

convention  than  State  matters.  The  one  presentable 
reason  for  omitting  them,  is  that  the  position  of  the 
party  is  so  well  known  as  not  to  need  restating-. 

Hartford  C  our  ant. 

That  the  General  Assembly  is  going  to  find  plenty 
to  do  when  it  comes  here  must  be  evident  to  every 
member,  who  will  just  ask  the  first  intelligent  con- 
stituent whom  he  meets  what  is  wanted  from  the  legis- 
lature. 

For  one  thing  people  want  an  honest  secret  ballot 
law,  where  some  responsible  authority  does  the  print- 
ing, and  under  which  there  can  be  no  such  quibbles 
over  title,  spelling  and  punctuation  as  this  law  has 
developed.  "Disfranchisement  by  a  comma"  was 
Lawyer  Case's  forceful  designation  of  what  brought 
about  our  discreditable  deadlock.  We've  seen  1,000 
Democratic  majority  in  1892  turn  to  13,000  Republi- 
can majority  in  1894.  A  pendulum  that  swings  like 
that,  may  yet  stick  at  some  point  where  every  vote 
is  needed,  and  where  our  present  law  may  again,  and 
this  time  not  without  warning,  land  us  all  in  trouble. 

Then  there  is  already  a  profound  public  sentiment 
against  vote-buying;  of  course,  this  includes  vote- 
selling,  there'd  be  few  sales  if  there  were  no  corrupt 
and  corrupting  buyers.  People  want  a  genuine,  sweep- 
ing, decisive  corrupt  practices  act.  And,  not  only 
this,  among  its  penalties  they  want  to  have  it  included 
that  whoever  sells,  and  whoever  buys  a  vote,  shall  be 
disfranchised  for  life,  and  disqualified  to  hold  office 
under  the  State  that  he  has  undertaken  to  undermine. 
This  would  quiet  some  "Statesmen",  as  the  dim  pros- 


126        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

pect  of  a  fine  and  the  imperceptible  shock  of  a  disgrace 
could  not  do. 

Besides  these  things,  people  want  to  be  rid,  root 
and  branch,  of  our  demoralizing  and  demoralized 
county  commission  government.  It  has  hopelessly 
discredited  itself.  Specious  arguments  for  its  main- 
tenance are  presented,  and  the  lobby,  the  place-hunters, 
and  the  reform  haters  are  all  agreed  that  the  office  shall 
be  continued.  The  people,  however, — and  there  are 
quite  a  number  of  them, — have  had  enough  of  it.  It 
will  go  some  year,  if  not  next  year. 

Whether  that  goes  now  or  not,  the  liquor  licensing 
must  be  divorced  absolutely  from  the  other  county 
work.  Playing  high  and  low  with  the  fees,  and  trying 
to  dragoon  the  saloon-keepers  into  service  at  elections 
is  played  out.  It  doesn't  even  do  party  duty  any 
longer. 

Then  there  are  the  two  pending  constitutional 
amendments,  one  to  re-district  the  State,  and  re-district 
it  equally,  for  the  election  of  senators ;  the  other  to 
have  a  plurality  elect  State  officers.  These  are  right. 
That's  the  reason  for  confirming  them.  The  Republi- 
can party  has  already  endorsed  them ;  that  binds  it 
to  them  now.  And,  as  for  policy,  Great  Scott!  Our 
State  officers  got  about  17,000  plurality  each  and  we 
carried  every  senatorial  district,  though  we  lost  the 
Hartford  senator  through  treachery  that  is  boasted  of 
by  its  prepetrators  and  remembered  by  true  Republi- 
cans. What  possible  fear  can  Republicans  have  of  the 
amendments  under  these  conditions? 

Large  questions  of  good  government  these;  full, 
too.  of  moral  considerations. 


APPENDIX.  127 

Hartford  Coiiraiit. 

The  New  Britain  Herald,  democratic  ex-Congress- 
man Vance's  paper,  gleefully  prints  the  following : 

"What  has  become  of  the  talk,  especially  by  the 
Courant,  anent  the  county  commissioners,  and  the 
necessity  for  their  obliteration  as  purveyors  of  licenses 
with  political  strings  to  them.  Undoubtedly  they  are 
a  detriment  to  whatever  party  controls  them,  and  there 
is  no  room  for  doubt  that  decent  men,  who  have  knowl- 
edge of  their  methods  demand  that  the  licensing  power 
be  put  in  other  hands.  There  seems  to  have  been 
considerable  pulling  in  of  horns  on  this  subject  to 
which  the  Herald  has  not  been  a  party,  and  we  now 
learn  that  under  the  present  administration  they  are 
to  be  more  partizan  than  ever." 

And  hasn't  the  Herald  reason  for  its  inquiry? 
Every  intelligent  person  in  Connecticut  knows  that  the 
sentiment  of  the  people  of  this  State  demands  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  office  of  county  commissioners — horse,  foot 
and  dragoons,  the  whole  concern.  Submitted  to  the 
people,  such  a  proposition  would  be  whooped  through 
the  ballot  boxes  at  the  rate  of  ten  to  one.  But  the 
people  do  not  have  the  immediate  say.  That  rests  with 
the  General  Assembly. 

And  the  General  Assembly  is  beset  with  aspirants 
for  the  position  and  with  friends  of  aspirants.  To 
abolish  the  office  will  make  every  one  of  these  think  he 
has  lost  the  place.  Possibly  the  pressure  of  this  sort 
is  going  to  prove  too  strong  for  popular  sentiment, 
although  the  legislature  can  perfectly  well  abolish  the 
position  after  all  the  elections  are  made,  and  when  nine- 
teen of  every  twenty  applicants  are  mad  and  ready  to 
see  it  go,  if  they  can't  get  it.     Should  the  General 


128        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

Assembly  fail  to  do  anything  to  remedy  the  evils  that 
are  notorious,  the  party  and  the  whole  State  would 
be  disgraced. 

Hartford  Courant. 

The  conviction  prevails  very  generally  through  the 
State  of  Connecticut,  that  it  is  time  for  the  present 
General  Assembly  to  do  something. 

There's  a  lot  of  important  work  all  laid  out  for  it 
and  delay  doesn't  make  the  matter  of  doing  this  any 
the  easier.  On  the  contrary,  if  these  measures  are 
shoved  along,  and  put  off  until  everybody  is  headed 
for  home,  then  whatever  is  done  will  have  to  be  done 
in  a  hurry. 

What  ails  the  honest  ballot  law? 

What  is  the  matter  with  the  proposed  Hartford 
bridge  investigation? 

Isn't  there  a  corrupt  practices  act  lying  around  some- 
where on  Capitol  Hill? 

Where's  that  adverse  report  on  the  proposal  to  make 
gambling  a  lawful  occupation  for  a  short  time  each 
year? 

Aren't  there  two  vitally  important  constitutional 
amendments  somewhere  in  the  works,  with  the  honor 
of  the  Republican  party  attached  to  them? 

Was  there  an  anti-lobby  bill  introduced  very  early 
in  the  session  with  several  others  of  similar  title  follow- 
ing it  ?     Where  are  they  ? 

Haven't  Gardiner  Greene,  Jr.,  for  one,  Thomas  M. 
Waller  for  another,  and  Albert  H.  Walker  for  another, 
each  said  openly  enough  to  challenge  an  investigation 
by  this  legislature,  as  to  how  Connecticut  laws  have 
been  made  and  Connecticut  campaigns  won? 


APPENDIX.  129 

How  soon  is  somebody  going  to  get  up  and  move 
that  the  General  Assembly  of  1895  proceed  to  busi- 
ness ? 

Hartford  Coiiranf. 

The  Republican  party  repudiating,  dodging,  facing 
about  and  deceiving,  is  in  a  new  attitude  indeed.  The 
leadership  that  puts  it  there  will  sooner  or  later  be  repu- 
diated itself;  and  the  Courant,  which  helped  to  create 
the  Republican  party  and  has  ever  since  been  in  it  and 
of  it,  wishes  now  very  distinctly  to  wash  its  own  hands 
of  any  responsibility,  for  the  policy  which  the  selfish 
interests  of  a  few  are  undertaking  to  enforce.  If  the 
opportunities  of  this  great  reform  year  are  thrown 
away,  and  the  pledges  made  before  election  are  left 
unfulfilled,  let  those  who  urge  that  course  be  held 
responsible  for  the.  things  that  follow.  We  shall  con- 
tinue to  record  history  as  it  unfolds,  and  shall  in  due 
time  print  the  obituaries  of  such  of  the  "leaders"  of 
to-day,  as  happen  to  be  remembered  at  death,  by  enough 
of  the  thousands  of  readers  of  the  Courant  to  give  the 
event  the  quality  of  news. 

Hartford  Courant. 

The  story  of  the  House's  refusal  to  redeem  the 
promise  given  to  the  people  two  years  ago,  by  submit- 
ting to  them  the  plurality  election  amendment,  is  told 
in  our  report  of  yesterday's  legislative  proceedings. 
There,  too,  will  be  found  the  record  made  yesterday 
by  every  representative  who  was  in  his  seat  when  the 
roll  was  called.  When  Speaker  Fessenden  announced 
the  result  of  the  vote,  some  of  the  members  clapped 
their  hands.  It  was  an  ill-timed,  ill-omened  applause. 
9 


13°        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

It  must  have  jarred  on  the  ears  of  more  than  one  of 
the  experienced  and  sagacious  politicians  who  heard  it. 

The  motives  of  the  members  who  voted  "No" 
yesterday  are  a  matter  between  themselves  and  their 
consciences.  Undoubtedly  many  were  misled ;  it 
wouldn't  be  necessary  to  make  any  very  long  search 
for  the  smooth-spoken,  sinister  counselors  who  misled 
them.  Their  record  is  a  matter  between  themselves 
and  their  constituents.  Believing  that  honesty  is  at 
all  times  and  under  all  circumstances  the  best  politics, 
the  Coiirant  pleaded  with  them  to  redeem  the  pledged 
word  of  the  Republican  party — to  keep  faith  with  the 
people.  We  have  nothing  to  add  now  to  what  we  have 
already  said  on  the  subject,  and  most  assuredly  we 
have  nothing  to  take  back.  We  are  grieved  that  the 
party  should  have  been  thus  wounded  in  the  house 
of  its  friends,  but  we  make  haste  to  declare  that  the 
honest  Republican  voters  of  Connecticut  have  no  part 
or  lot  in  yesterday's  work.  They  have  been  misrepre- 
sented by  their  representatives.  Perhaps  the  experi- 
ence may  make  them  more  careful  and  critical  in  their 
choice  at  the  nominating  caucus  hereafter. 

The  other  constitutional  amendment — that  for  read- 
justing and  equalizing  the  senatorial  districts — is  still 
to  be  acted  upon.  It  is  much  the  more  important  of 
the  two.  To  pass  it  on  to  the  people  will  be  to  mimi- 
niize  the  evil  results  of  yesterday's  action  on  the 
plurality  election  amendment.  Every  consideration  of 
justice  and  prudence,  party  probity  and  party  policy, 
requires  its  passage.  What  avowable  reasons  are  there 
why  any  Republican  legislator  should  oppose  it? 


APPENDIX.  131 

Hartford  Conrant. 

And  the  senatorial  amendment  has  been  killed  too! 
It  needed  two-thirds  of  the  votes  to  carry  it  and  it  got 
one  more  than  two-thirds  against  it  and  it  is  lost. 

If  it  had  been  imagined  two  years  ago  that  these 
two  amendments,  passed  almost  unanimously  then, 
would  be  turned  down  now,  they  never  would  have 
had  a  chance  to  be  passed  then.  The  General  Assem- 
bly would  have  taken  things  into  its  own  hands  and 
called  a  constitutional  convention,  and  by  to-day  we 
should  have  had  a  new  constitution.  Nobody  knows 
what  that  would  have  been  like,  but,  whatever  it  was, 
we'd  have  had  to  take  it. 

That  peril  was  avoided  by  passing  these  two  amend- 
ments, and  their  passage  was  approved  both  for  what 
they  were  and  because  a  threatened  danger  was  thereby 
removed.  If  any  Republican  had  said  then  that  the 
action  of  1893  would  do  to  keep  the  peace  with,  but 
would  be  repudiated  in  two  years,  he  would  at  that 
time  have  been  called  a  trickster  and  would  have  been 
denounced  all  along  the  line. 

But  the  two  years  have  gone  by  and  the  amendments 
have  been  killed,  although  in  our  opinion,  three-quar- 
ters of  the  people  and  more  than  a  hundred  of  the 
towns,  if  not  all  of  them,  would,  if  they  had  the  chance, 
adopt  each  amendment  to-day.  They  expected  the 
chance  and  they  will  be  disappointed  and  indignant 
at  what  has  been  done. 

The  big  corporations,  which  find  the  control  of 
thirteen  senators  means  the  control  of  all  Connecticut 
legislation,  did  not  want  the  senate  enlarged.  The 
proposed  enlargement  has  been  killed  off. 


132        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

The  political  managers  who  would  have  more  money 
to  handle  if  they  could  bear  down  on  the  candidates, 
with  the  need  of  greasing  each  town  so  as  to  have  the 
legislature  right,  in  case  the  State  ticket  failed  of  a 
clean  majority,  did  not  want  the  majority  restriction 
removed.     And  it  isn't  removed. 

The  political  managers  who  undertake  to  run  con- 
ventions, sometimes  for  love  or  hate  and  sometimes  for 
more  material  considerations,  want  to  be  able  to  stick 
impopular  men  on  the  ticket,  if  it  seems  worth  their 
while.  With  the  majority  regulation  this  can  be  done; 
with  the  plurality  rule  in  efifect  an  objectionable  candi- 
date would  have  to  take  the  consequences  and  go 
under.  Hence  the  machine,  for  this  reason  also,  was 
against  the  amendment,  and  the  amendment  is  dead. 

It  is  a  matter  for  extreme  regret,  statewise  and 
partywise.  As  regards  the  party,  we  can  only  say  that 
the  rank  and  file,  the  sound  everyday  men  who  give 
the  Republican  party  its  strength  in  numbers,  in  con- 
victions, in  morals,  want  these  amendments.  They 
have  been  beaten  by  the  machine  politicians  and,  to  a 
certain  extent,  the  party  will  have  to  take  the  conse- 
quences. But  the  responsibility  ought  to  be  located, 
and  there  is  where  it  belongs.  It  is  bad  enough  to 
have  such  men  living  on  the  party ;  but  it's  worse  yet 
to  have  them  actually  succeed  in  shaping  its  policy  to 
their  short-sighted  and  selfish  notions. 

Hartford  C  our  ant. 

The  Hartford  Times  of  last  evening  made  the  fol- 
lowing announcement  in  cold  type : 

"It  was  only  a  few  weeks  ago  that  the  Republican 
party  managers,   from  both  within  and  without  the 


APPENDIX.  133 

legislative  halls,  met  with  closed  doors  in  a  committee 
room  on  the  upper  floor  of  the  Capitol,  to  determine 
the  policy  to  be  pursued  regarding-  the  constitutional 
amendments,  to  which  their  party  pledged  its  support 
in  1893.  At  that  conference  a  secret  program  was 
arranged  under  which  the  defeat  of  the  amendments 
has  been  accomplished.  Under  this  arrangement  there 
have  been  favorable  reports  from  the  committee  on  the 
amendments ;  the  party  managers  have  given  out  that 
there  would  be  little  doubt  of  their  approval,  by  the 
requisite  two-thirds  votes  of  the  Republican  majorities 
in  both  branches,  some  of  the  managers  have  even 
spoken  in  their  favor  on  the  floor  of  the  General 
Assembly,  and  the  party  organs  have  taken  the  cue 
given  them,  to  lend  a  seeming  endorsement.  But  back 
of  all  this  stood  the  arrangement  that  the  amendments 
should  be  defeated,  and  it  has  been  faithfully  carried 
out.  Whether,  as  has  been  intimated,  the  instructions 
to  kill  these  amendments,  were  sent  out  by  the  State 
central  committee  to  the  rank  and  file  in  the  General 
Assembly,  we  are  not  in  a  position  to  affirm,  but  the 
results  assuredly  point  in  that  direction." 

Talk  about  vague  pulpit  charges !  Why  not  investi- 
gate this  charge  of  conspiracy,  hypocrisy  and  double- 
dealing?  As  to  the  secret  meeting  and  the  under- 
standing, if  any,  that  was  reached,  we  have  nothing  to 
say,  because  we  know  nothing  about  that.  But  there 
are  two  things  that  we  do  know  about,  and  that  we 
are  quick  to  say  in  connection  with  this  interesting 
anecdote. 

The  first  is  that  the  newspapers  of  the  party,  practi- 
cally a  unit  for  the  two  constitutional  amendments, 
were  not  in  any  such  cheap  and  dirty  game  as  this 


134        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION.     ' 

alleged  by  the  Times.  They  didn't  "lend"  a  "seem- 
ing endorsement."  They  gave  an  actual,  earnest,  sin- 
cere endorsement,  and  they  are  to-day  ashamed  and 
disgusted  at  what  has  been  done. 

The  second  thing  is  that  in  this  they  reflect  the 
sentiment  of  the  "rank  and  file"  of  the  party.  The 
Republicans  of  Connecticut  want  the  two  amendments. 
They  are  disappointed  and  indignant  at  this  additional 
"stone"  instead  of  bread  that  has  been  given  them. 
A  great  mistake  has  been  made  in  public  policy,  and  so 
in  party  policy. 

Hartford  Courant. 

When  the  estimates  of  revenues  and  expenses  of 
the  town  for  the  coming  year,  were  submitted  in  Octo- 
ber the  income  from  licenses  was  based  on  a  rate  of 
$500.  If  the  county  commissioners  have  any  fitness 
whatever  for  business  they  knew  this.  They  offered 
no  protest  nor  said  anything  of  an  intention  then,  to 
make  the  reduction  so  suddenly  sprung  upon  the  com- 
munity. The  community  was  a  good  deal  more  sur- 
prised than  those  licensees  who  had  been  "seen"  on 
the  subject  already. 

Every  taxpayer  must  pay  out  of  his  own  pocket  for 
this  strange,  though  not  unexplainable,  action  of  the 
commissioners.  It  is  a  scandal  in  itself,  but  it  is  only 
one  among  many.  The  people  haven't  yet  forgotten 
the  shameful  story  of  wholesale  jail  deliveries  that  was 
published  a  while  ago.  They  are  sick  and  tired  of  the 
way  the  office  is  run  and  of  the  way  it  has  been  run. 
It  was  an  offense  under  so-called  Republican  manage- 
ment ;  it  offends  now  under  Democratic  rule.  There's 
no  question  of  party  in  the  case.     It  is  a  question  of 


APPENDIX.  135 

decency  and  good  government.  So  we  say  again, 
away  with  the  office.  Wipe  it  out  of  existence.  The 
jails  can  be  better  managed  by  the  sheriffs  with  a  Httle 
increase  of  clerical  force.  The  county  homes  can  be 
lifted  out  of  their  baby  farming  ill-odor  by  being 
turned  over  to  the  State  Board  of  Charities.  The 
licensing  can  be  intelligently  and  honestly  administered 
by  the  superior  court  judges,  or  by  a  special  commis- 
sion appointed,  say  by  the  supreme  court — a  tribunal 
of  high  character  above  partizanship. 

There's  no  obstacle  to  the  change  save  such  as  can 
be  easily  overcome.  It's  time  to  act.  We  are  now 
in  the  reform  line.  Here  is  a  chance  for  a  genuine  and 
healthy  reform  with  no  politics  in  it,  but  with  the  public 
welfare  altogether  in  it. 


CONNECTICUT    TOWNS,    SHOWING    POPULATION 
AND    REPRESENTATION. 


Census  of  1890. 


No.  Name. 

1  Andover 

2  Union   

3  Prospect  

4  Bolton  

5  Warren  

6  Salem   

7  Beacon  Falls  . . . 

8  Scotland 

9  Wolcott    

10  Chaplin   

11  Bethlehem 

12  Lisbon  

13  Bethany    

14  Eastford  

15  Hartland    

16  Middlebury 

17  Marlborough  ..  . 

18  Killingworth  .  . . 

19  Morris    

20  Franklin   

21  Bridgewater    .  . . 

22  Hampton    

23  East  Granby  . . . 

24  Sherman 

25  New  Fairfield  .  . 

26  Columbia   

27  Weston 

28  Ashford   

29  North  Branford 

30  Durham   

31  Westbrook  

2,2     Oxford   


Population. 
401 

•  445 

•  452 

.   477 

.  481 

.  505 

.  506 

.  522 

.  542 

.  543 

.  548 

•  550 
.  561 
.  565 
.  566 
.  582 
.  582 
.  584 
.  585 

617 

•  ■  632 
.  661 
,   668 

670 

•  740 
,  772 

■  77^ 

■  82s 
.  856 
,  874 

902 


Representation. 
I 
2 


APPENDIX.  137 

No.         Name.  Population.  Representation. 

S2  Willington   906  2 

34  Woodbridge    926  I 

35  Roxbury    936  I 

26  Harwinton  943  2 

S7  Canterbury    947  2 

38  Newington  953  •  I 

39  East  Haven 955  I 

40  Canaan  970  i 

41  Goshen  972  2 

42  Lyme  977  2 

43  Brookfield    989  I 

44  Monroe  994  i 

45  Easton 1,001  I 

46  Middlefield 1,002  I 

47  Bozrah    1,005  I 

48  Tolland  1,037  2 

49  Hebron  1,039  2 

50  Sterling    1,051  I 

51  Voluntown 1,060  I 

52  Rocky  Hill    1,069  I 

53  Southbnry   1,089  I 

54  Colebrook    1,098  2 

55  Sprague    1,106  I 

56  Barkhamsted    1,130  2 

57  Avon 1,182  I 

58  Ledyard   1,183  I 

59  Granby   1,251  2 

60  Cornwall    i  .283  2 

61  Chester   1,301     '  I 

62  Burlington   1,302  I 

6s  Bloomfield  1,308  I 

64  Old  Lyme   1,319  I 

65  Kent    1,383  I 

66  Clinton   1.384  I 

67  Somers   1,407  2 

68  Madison  1,429  I 

69  Trumbull   1.453  I 

70  North  Stonington 1,463  2 

71  Pomfret   I.471  2 


138        THE    CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 


No.  Name.                                                                Population.          Representation. 

^2     Old  Saybrook 1.484  I 

TZ     Saybrook   1,484  2 

74  Ellington    1,539  I 

75  Norfolk 1,546  2 

76  Redding   1,546  2 

TJ     Washington  1,633  2 

78  Lebanon  1,670  2 

79  North  Canaan 1,683  I 

80  Wilton    1,722  I 

81  South  Windsor  1,736  i 

82  Woodbury   1,815  2 

83  North  Haven   1,862  i 

84  Simsbury   1,874  2 

85  Coventry    1,875  2 

86  Mansfield  1,911  2 

87  Cheshire 1.929  2 

88  West  Hartford 1,930  i 

89  Chatham 1.949  2 

90  Cromwell    1.987  I 

91  Plainville   1,993  I 

92  Essex    2,035  I 

93  East  Lyme    2,048  I 

94  Haddam  2,095  2 

95  Plymouth   2, 147  I 

96  Sharon    2.149  2 

97  Ridgefield  2,235  2 

98  Wethersfield   2,271  2 

99  Darien 2,276  i 

100     Woodstock    2.309  2 

loi     Watertown    2,323  I 

102  ]\Iontville   2.344  I 

103  Canton    2,500  i 

104  Preston   2,555  2 

105  East  Haddam 2,599  2 

106  Berlin    2,600  I 

107  Stratford   2,608  i 

108  Brooklyn    2,628  I 

109  Waterford   2,661  I 

1 10  New   Canaan    2,701  i 


APPENDIX.  139 

No.  Name.  Population.  Representation. 

111  Windsor  Locks   2,758  i 

112  Guilford   2.780  2 

113  East  Windsor 2,890  2 

114  Windsor 2,954  2 

115  Colchester   2,988  2 

116  Griswold    3,ii3  I 

117  New  Hartford  3,i6o  2 

118  Suffield  3,169  2 

119  Farmington  3,179  2 

120  Thomaston    3,278  I 

121  Seymour  3.300  I 

122  Litchfield   3,304  2 

123  Bethel  3,40i  I 

124  Salisbury    3420  2 

125  Glastonbury   3,457  2 

126  Newtown    3,539  2 

127  Westport    3,715  I 

128  Milford 3,81 1  2 

129  Fairfield   3.868  2 

130  Hamden    3,882  I 

131  New  Milford   3.917  2 

132  Huntington   4.006  I 

133  East  Hartford   4.455  2 

134  Branford    4,460  I 

135  Stafford    4-535  2 

136  Orange   4,537  i 

137  Plainfield   4.582  2 

138  Portland  4,687  i 

139  Southington    5,501  2 

140  Groton    5.539  2 

141  Thompson    5.580  2 

142  Derby   5,969  2 

143  Torrington    6.048  2 

144  Winchester    6.183  2 

145  Naugatuck  6,218  2 

146  Putnam 6,512  2 

147  Wallingford    6.584  2 

148  Killingly   7,027  2 

149  Stonington  7,184  2 


I40        THE   CONNECTICUT    CONSTITUTION. 

No.         Name.  Population.  Representation. 

150  Enfield 7,199  2 

151  Bristol  7,382  2 

152  Manchester   8,222  2 

153  Vernon  8,808  2 

154  Windham  10,032  2 

15s  Greenwich  10,131  2 

156  Ansonia    10,342  2 

157  New  London   13, 757  2 

158  Middletown  15,205  2 

159  Stamford  15,700  2 

160  Norwalk  17,747  2 

161  New  Britain  19,007  2 

162  Danbury  19,473  2 

163  Norwich  23,048  2 

164  Meriden   25,423  2 

165  Waterbury  33,202  2 

166  Bridgeport  48,866  2 

167  Hartford    53,230  2 

168  New  Haven   86,045  2 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Form  L9-Series  4939 


JK3325.-    -1900-C25- 


UCSOi  :*HrP:'.  -.F",  ■'•,,■.. 


AA    000  553  580 


